Again that mention is irrelevant for vindication. Irrespective of content. Since verification is via inductive reasoning of what that may have
been relative to what it is.
It does not simplify and still Einstein’s call for simplification, even of he was aware of all implication.
That is not sufficient in displacing relative truth, unless coming from other presumptions then those of of Einstein’s pregenitors.
For my part rename my part I would rename this most well inferred, rather then well written.
Hmm.
Im hoping some others wont be as prideful as to discuss their own merits here but come up with a post by someone else!!! Or am I the only one here capabyeof valuing others work?
Sometimes I think so.
But Sil, why is the speech of light what it is, why does it covert so neatly to e and m? Thats the genius, the applied mathematics.
The speed of light is just some constant, like every other constant be it the gravitational constant, planck’s constant, absolute zero etc. - they might as well be given the value “1” or “0”, and everything else measured relative to them. The fact that they’re some weird number is testament only to the units that we happened to settle on to measure everyday things back when science was new. Why is a metre as long as it is? A second as long as it is? People weren’t consulting the physical limits of the universe when they decided how much a gram weighed - it would be astronomically surprising if physical limits just so happened to match up with the arbitrary measures that humans stumbled upon accepting whilst fumbling around in the dark.
What does have significance is the way in which basic units of measurement relate to one another. F = ma is simply the observation that “feeling some push or pull” is moreso the heavier something is, and the faster it’s accelerating. “Force” is just an interpretation of human experience that depends on these two things: mass and acceleration. Energy, “E”, is no different: it’s Force, but over a distance. Energy is mass being accelerated from point A to point B: E = Fd. And since F = ma, Fd is “mad” (lol), I mean the product of mass, acceleration and distance, which use the units “kilogram, metres per second squared, metres” i.e. kgm^2/s^2, which simplifies to kg(m/s)^2: mass x velocity squared, m(v^2). What v though? The speed of light, c. E = m(c^2). Force over distance converting to mass and a speed limit really isn’t that mystical if you break it down like this.
And the famous formula isn’t even accurate if motion is involved, and has to be qualified with “1 divided by (the square root of (1 minus (velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared))), all minus 1”, the gamma value of a Lorentz Transformation - so the conversion from E to m isn’t as neat as E = m(c^2) it is famously sold as being. And the fact that the speed limit of light turns out to be the important velocity in question is just a result of special relativity, which is only really born from the common sense observation that speeds are relative to the observer - and the experimental realisation that time and distance aren’t absolute, because they dilate/contract the faster you go. The impressive part is all the math to prove the exact way in which they all relate to each other, and the genius part is seeing past the traditional Newtonian assumptions of absolute time and distance. But to be fair, in Newton’s time nothing was being measured accurately enough near the speed of light, so how was he supposed to know.
Anyhoo, my last post was written drunk, and whilst I do have a high opinion of myself I tend not to be quite so brazen with it when sober - oopsy.
The idea behind this thread is an excellent one and so I hope that it becomes very popular and extensive
As long as no egos get involved and start submitting their own posts [ there should be a rule against this ]
This forum is I8 years old and many original posters are no longer here so trawling through the archives might be beneficial
Otherwise all those threads will simply be lying abandoned and will probably never be read again - which would be a shame
The technicalities on what would constitute a perfect bang in the big bang are shaky. I don’t know how a brane collision or a black hole can account for the absolute uniformity of spacetime. But the idea that we were seeded from some kind of quantum source in a larger ocean, like timeless genesis coming from a never ending nirvana could be quite harmonious.
This doesn’t account for relativity - experimental evidence backs up the curvature of spacetime in proportion to gravity and high speeds. Both of these conditions are met by the big bang, resulting in maximum spactime curvature, which involves time dilation and length contraction. Lengths are minimally small under these conditions (just a singularity) and times are maximally long - it takes nearly forever for the universe to cross a threshold where it “appears to begin” according to present day human perceptions of time. The initially high temperatures mean entropy increases maximally slowly - this is all consistent.
Now, after this threshold, the universe isn’t expanding “into something else”, spacetime itself is just uncurving. Lengths grow, time speeds up, gravities weaken proportionally to the inverse square law, and increases in entropy initially speed up.
I find the easiest way to visualise what the experimental evidence indicates is through the use of an extra dimension, along which spacetime is uncurving. It’s not expanding “into nothing” or into something else, but along this dimension, giving the impression of spacetime expanding when not considering this extra dimension.
As lengths grow, times speed up, gravities weaken and entropy tends towards a maximum, temperatures and differences in temperatures minimise - towards a big chill. Again, all consistent.
Curving is an effectivity upon affectance. (Per St James and that appears plausible.) Logic of the most elementary exclusively set kind, suggests otherwise.
Both escape from absolute states and return to them are true, w/o thing variable levels of associative/disassociate processes.
So the universe changes phenomenal change in accordance to the variable- ility of states.
Therefore the absolute state of things appears as both, but can mean different things in different states of being/becoming.
The modern resurgence into Nietzche’s phenomenology invites this type of interpretation , as viewed through Husserl.
[quo te]
Didn’t expect to see a soul. I opened the door just in time to see the young lady slam her office door. We refer to her as ‘Love’. I realise it sounds sexist to call someone Love, but she doesn’t seem to mind.
“What’s up with her?” I ask.
My question is disregarded. Instead, he directs his gaze at the now slammed door. “Come on, Love,” he calls. He looks at me, shakes his head. “Don’t ask,” I am told.
“Too late, I’ve already asked. What was all that about?”
He ignores my question. He points at my hands. “What have you been doing?”
“Removing the graffiti, as instructed.”
“All gone?”
“All apart from, ism. What’s upset her?”
“You know what she’s like.”
“Does she know I’m here?”
“What do you think?? By the way, you just missed your grandson.”
“You’re kidding me.”
“I told him you are a complete fool. He seemed to accept it. Go and put bard after ism.”/quote]
Meno said something outstandingly good somewhere
“and Rumi transferred his eagle nature into the remarkable bat Dracula.”
