Origination

But James, 3 dimensions is multidimensional. It was an analytic statement.

Actually, I was expecting him to make that assertion. And then I was going to kick his ass for it.
His proclamation involved more than 3, or 4 if you include time (which happens to be 3 dimensional in itself - different topic).

May be, presence of BLACK HOLE can be good example
for existence of extra dimension ( though not in the order of dimensions one can expect ).

Hi Chris, this is the one question I too can never tear myself away from. I actually created an almost identical thread a while back but i can’t find it now :frowning:

You’ll notice my avatar lol, and also perhaps my sig in which i make a point of saying how scientists need to concede sometimes that they don’t know and cannot know, but are institutionally unwilling to

The Big Bang Theory should be taught in schools, but not as though it was the begninning of everything for questions always remain - the same questions philosophers have been remarking upon for ages.

Kudos to you for seeing it in this way and i couldn’t endorse this thread any higher, seriously :slight_smile:

What are the properties of this 5th and 6th dimension?

Actually, reality is a possible absurdity. Regardless, spacetime does not prove that if relativity were true then raelity is an impossible absurdity. That is a very stupid comment.

Does an ignorant reply count as a “stupid comment”?

Minkowski mathematically and graphically showed that if relativity were true, there would have to be sections of space that were not space. Rather than accept that relativity must not be true, they accepted that reality itself must not be true and that logic itself must be illogical… anything to promote irrationality within Science.

An ignorant comment is stupid when one adamantly thinks they know what they’re talking about, when they have no idea. This is where you excel at.

Your regurgitation of Minkowski is incorrect. No mathematical or graphical formula would not show that space is not space, its just an illogical condition to begin with that is impossible to portray. Your wording of any criticism of relativity or spacetime is amiss. The fact that you didn’t even portray what you really meant, just goes to further evidence that you’re not a clear thinker.

Then based on your definition, I have to accept that your comment was “stupid”. And I strongly expect at this point they will continue to be.

“Stupid”

“Stupid”

“Stupid”

Portral of what I meant is an issue of subjective relativity… and mutual responsibility.

When you can actually address the actual thoughts involved with something other than “your comments are ‘stupid’”, maybe we can get to the bottom of it all. But I’m thinking that you reply in that way because you have no idea of how to defend your idol.

The burden of proof is on you James. You made the claim the flies in the face of science, back it up. I refuted your initial response that there is a condition of space not being space. That doesn’t make sense. Back up your claim now. Elaborate. Philosophize

Oh I agree that “space is not space” wouldn’t make sense. Hermann Minkowski thought so too. He was trying to display how relativity couldn’t be right. It is much like Einstein and Schrodinger demonstrating how QM’s claims couldn’t make any sense. But what you are calling “Science” isn’t Science. They merely pulled a typical witchery trick to make it appear to the public as though they were proving how reality is magical and illogical - anti-science. Einstein even stated that he didn’t like what they were doing to Science. But I suspect to get along, he eventually went along.

The error is in the logic, not the mathematics. This is an old subject to me and is directly related to one of the many proofs that relativity is actually the only thing that is relative…Stopped Clock Paradox.

There are no actual paradoxes in reality. Yet Relativity demands one. Minkowski demonstrated that you must “bend space” in order to get anything to work out with special relativity. But space is a concept. You can’t “bend” a straight line concept. Thus proving that the whole relativity concept is flawed.

The ball is in your court.

Existence itself is a paradox, there is no reason for existence to exist, by nature. That stands whether god exists or not, because if god created the universe, he still existed and is part of existence. As such either he had no reason to exist as he was always there or popped in to thin air, same as the natural universe.

There is no error in the logic with relativity. Space is more than a straight line and simply because things are concepts has nothing to do with this discussion. Space /time both bend. You’ll have to explain further how space doesn’t bend, because your criticism is lacking a valid explanation.

I’ll elaborate on why you’re wrong, regardless of you not offering a remotely valid critique of space/time and relativity. There is valid physical evidence supporting the bending of space/time. One being described in the link below. The other is the prediction of light (through the bending of space)" not traveling in a straight line. I would like to see how you debunk that light will be able to bend, and not space. Consider that light has no mass, how could gravity affect light’s path?

guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ … n.universe

.

[size=116]
Oh I am really glad you asked this important question!

I think this proves a statement I just made to you upon another thread. = YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT!

Have some confidence!

OK, back to the issue at hand…

This is a GREAT link to start your investigation. Follow ALL the other links to individuals and concepts.

Start your reading and ENJOY!

Give me a whistle after you are done.

I appreciate your honesty and sincerity.

Those are actually two great traits of real philosophers.

Together, we will find and develop the real philosopher in you!
[/size]

.

Bull. Now the burden of proof is on YOU.
What exists is what is. How can you claim that what is, is not what is, ie. “paradoxical”.
It is by paradoxes that you disprove things.
When a man says that he was in bed asleep at the time of the crime and there is video footage of him at the scene of the crine, he is convicted by the idea that it would be a paradox for him to be in both places at once. Yet in our pseudo-science it has been accepted that things can be in two places at once (the QM explanation of the double-slit experiment with particles).

This has nothing to do with the God arguments.

Then resolve the paradox. As I said, the ball is in your court.

It most certainly does. Every discussion cannot exist without consistent concepts.

No. Your statement that space bends is lacking in explanation. You, probably because you have no understanding of what has taken place in Science, must merely rely on what you have come to believe other people have said and done. You do not have any means to actually defend what they have told you. Thus you must default merely to “well THEY tell us that X is true.” I don’t argue with that. THEY do tell you X is true. But how would any argument on my part change your mind as to whether it really is true? You are a faithful follower of your religion of scientism and their prophets. You have no idea of how to defend their arguments (but I’d be glad if you could prove me wrong on that).

I stated that a defined straight line cannot be bent.
The very concept of space is all about 3 physical dimensions.
A dimension is a straight line, not a curved line. And even if it were curved, to what measure would it be curved?
How can you have a curve if you don’t have a straight to compare it to?
And if you have that straight line to compare it too, you have those straight line dimensions of space.
Thus “space”, by its very definition cannot “bend”… and does not.

Resolve the paradox else you will not be able to rationally defend your stance.

As I already stated, existence itself is a paradox because there is no reason for existence to exist, by nature. That is the paradox.

Light generally travels in a straight line, that is what you can compare the bending of space to.

“Einstein predicted that light should be bent by gravity. Sir Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the 1919 Total Eclipse of the Sun. The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near to the Sun. Their positions showed that the light had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted. The experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.”
physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae198.cfm

Obviously, so there’s no reason to attempt to debunk anything by stating “But space is a concept”. Everything is a concept. :-"

No it doesn’t, I even provided you an example of how it bends.

Space is never defined as a straight line. You’re the first person I ever saw say that, which speaks volumes. You’ve built a straw man argument against what space is and argue against it based on what it is not.

I’ve just notified Collins, Webster & I’ve got Oxford on the line right now. I’ve told them the Saint has managed to redefine science.
Reality really is magical. As gifts from God go, do you think it a rather boring one or something?

Of course there are paradoxes in reality (or at least one) - this very thread hopes to discuss it.
I myself wrote a thread on here about this very thing - the OP really does say it all and there’s nothing more for me to add.

Origination is also an excellent title (better than whatever mine was thats for sure) as it succintly focuses the point on the fact there must have been an ‘origin’ for whatever one believes came first.

A paradox is an argument that proposes that two things must both be true.
The lack of your understanding as to why there is a universe does not constitute a paradox.
I could go into a very precise explanation as to why there is a universe, but that doesn’t seem to be the problem.

Most certainly not and because of your next statement…

And he was right. The LIGHT path bent. But bent with respect to what? Bent space? if you bend the space, the light path isn’t bent anymore. So make up your mind.

You have no explanation for how or why existence exists and if you do, you’re wrong. I know this because there is no reason for existence to exist. For existence to have a reason for its existence, it would have to be preceded by something, which is impossible. I already know it is a paradox, you just have to come to understanding of it.

In case you were thinking, as I know you believe in God, as I brought up earlier, explaining the universe exists because god does doesn’t matter. Its not about the universe, its about the existence of existence itself.

Your definition of a paradox is poor, you should go to the professionals more often:
Paradox:
1
: a tenet contrary to received opinion
2
a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3
: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

Do you understand what generally means? Do you like to argue just to argue? It seems that way, because it reflects very poorly on your intelligence.

But here’s examples of how light generally travels in a straight line

Teachers’ Domain: How Light Travels
www.teachersdomain.org/resource/lsps07. … ghttravel/
Aug 9, 2007 – The video uses two activities to demonstrate that light travels in straight lines. First, you see a game of flashlight tag in which light from a …
Does Light Travel in a Straight Line? | eHow.com
www.ehow.com › Hobbies & Science
Light explores all paths between locations, and the path of least resistance is chosen, which is usually the straight line. Light wishes to travel in a method that will …
Characteristics of Light: Light travels in a straight line
serc.carleton.edu/20239
Aug 30, 2012 – … of light. Students demonstrate that light travels straight and does not bend around an object. … Students will discover that light travels in a straight line. Within small … Institution: General Elementary Classroom Type of …
Video: Does Light Travel in a Straight Line? | eHow.com
► 2:56► 2:56

www.ehow.com/video_4951989_light-travel … ht-l…Jun 23, 2010 - 3 min
Light travels both in straight lines and through reflection, which is a process in which light enters a prism …
Light travelling in a straight line Part 1 - YouTube
► 0:47► 0:47

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4N40X07A4wMay 17, 2011 - 47 sec - Uploaded by zahrak100
light travels in straight linesby lvw14,041 views · Light travelling in a straight line … Physical Science …
More videos for light generally travels in a straight line »

That doesn’t make any sense. If you bend space, the path light travels is bent.

There should be some sort of mental diagnosis where people are so blatantly dumb but think they’re not. Similar to how conspiracy theorists work, they back up their bullshit with bullshit, ad nauseum.

I believe there are terms for whatever is plaguing him. Us knowing them may not help matters, but certainly James would benefit from addressing any and all issues relating to his ego & sense of self.

His delusions that he is right because there is a way in which to distort the case being put to him, are something that have the potential to disillusion ILP members with real philosophical discussion based on logic, reasoning and perhaps most importantly - concessions! There is no point for any member to even be on here (let alone making so many posts) if they are forever unwilling to concede they are incorrect when proven beyond doubt.

NB. James, I am not saying that you are wrong in this thread so please don’t try to drag the issue in that direction.