a poor substitute, I have watched the entire PBS series on it…long
ago. (For those not familiar with this, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
)
When it comes to strings, branes etc., I've done some research and
reading and, while interesting, find it not any different in nature
than the beliefs people hold about what appears to be outside of
themselves already discussed. In fact, if anything, it is even more of
a dream since it is based upon math…and math from the 1800s at that.
So tts, which was your 'youthful theory'?...the one about a voracious
gravity monster or the one about what the best TV show was? ;-)
**And, as an aside, the first book of this nature I did read as a kid
was "One Two Three...Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science" by
George Gamow – the original edition. Later, in the late 50s or early
60s I read one of A. E's books on Special Relativity which included
his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". (http://
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf )
I knew enough math at the time to get a feel for it. Both books deal
with the nature of relativity…something of interest to our present
topic.
No, it isn't exactly the same as what I'm presenting; however, it
might be a start for those who haven't yet pondered such things.
Here is a very short description from "Einstein-Online":
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/RelativityPrinciple
On May 5, 6:52 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i still think my youthful theory is better than your youthful theory ,
> the original star treck was the only one of thoughs shows worth
> watching
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ornamentalmind wrote:
> > TTS, no, I've never thougt that...not even while watching Star Trek,
> > The Outer Limits nor the Twilight Zone!.
>
> > In my youth I did come up with the notion that gravity is the result
> > of everything expanding...something that the progression of: point,
> > line, square, cube, hypercube supports.
>
> > On May 5, 12:14 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > O.R. , have u ever thought that gravitty might be matter
> > > susstaining istself by feeding off an unseen infanit energy sorce,
> > > drawing it inwards. perhaps its not a force like electro magnatizam
> > > but the resalt of this "feeding"
>
> > > On May 4, 12:26 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "…We still don't know how gravity works, but we
> > > > are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
> > > > and can apply sciences to measure it. Like time we can see the
> > > > effects of it. Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
> > > > time may be down to something else entirly…" – Lee
>
> > > > True that we don't know how gravity works. I'll add that we don't know
> > > > what it is either…even though there is a predictable 'effect'. So, not
> > > > knowing what a thing is nor how it works how do we know that it
> > > > exists? Here I'll use the understanding of the term 'exists' as being
> > > > something that the physical senses see/feel/hear etc. We don't see
> > > > 'it' (gravity). We only see some predictable movement and that
> > > > movement applies to about everything so in this sense it is not unique…
> > > > let alone a unique 'thing'. Now, one need not agree with this of
> > > > course; however, if not, it would appear congruent to me that one
> > > > could say that god 'exists' in the same way. . . something that I
> > > > suggest (in most cases) is but a belief…not any objective 'existence'.
>
> > > > "…The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that
> > > > it
> > > > is just imaginagtion isn't it…" - Lee
>
> > > > Yes Lee, if one merely imagines it…it is. However, are you suggesting
> > > > that we do not live in eternity? That eternity doesn't 'exist'? These
> > > > are all parts of the examination I suggest.
>
> > > > On May 4, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey OM.
>
> > > > > I guess what we are talking about are forces. I see that perhaps you
> > > > > do not count time a s force, or that perhaps our understanding of what
> > > > > time is must be constrained by the type of being we are.
>
> > > > > Yes I agree that the reality maynot be wholey how we percive it to be,
> > > > > as you know this has been my stance for a long while now.
>
> > > > > Back to forces though. We still don't know how gravity works, but we
> > > > > are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
> > > > > and can apply sciences to measure it. Like time we can see the
> > > > > effects of it. Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
> > > > > time may be down to something else entirly.
>
> > > > > The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that it
> > > > > is just imaginagtion isn't it. I can also imagine that I'll a tall
> > > > > man with broad shoulders, but the reality of the situation is I am
> > > > > not.
>
> > > > > On May 4, 10:34 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Lee, I sense that what we perceive as being 'external' - energy and
> > > > > > movement - is that. However, beyond this, our notions of what things
> > > > > > are...even the letters and associated words for SETI... only exist in
> > > > > > thought...no where else.
>
> > > > > > As an aside, for those who may have missed it, SETI has been defunded.
>
> > > > > > And, no, I didn't miss your caveat. I just disagree and suspect that
> > > > > > having thought about what one thinks is real, which does include the
> > > > > > concept of time, all one's lifetime...the notion of time becomes so
> > > > > > ingrained in one's world view that it is assumed to be an actual thing
> > > > > > rather than merely a thought.
>
> > > > > > Yes, when one *thinks* about such things, they appear to be real. The
> > > > > > operative words here are "appears to be". As a mental exercise Lee,
> > > > > > I'll ask you to do your very best to imagine existing in
> > > > > > eternity...that which has no beginning and no end.
>
> > > > > > Got the vision?.....from this perspective (the actual 'reality'), time
> > > > > > just is meaningless... especially if one also imagines no perceiver(s)
> > > > > > involved anywhere at all.
>
> > > > > > On the other hand, I do know that there is life and that we, as human
> > > > > > beings do think and project our understandings upon the fabric of what
> > > > > > we project as being 'external' to ourselves. I don't deny this...it is
> > > > > > obvious that we do. It's just that what we project comes from mind and
> > > > > > not from whatever is actually there. What is actually there is not
> > > > > > what we perceives as time...it isn't color (except clear light as TTS
> > > > > > notes...something I've been contemplating for years now...something
> > > > > > that to the rational/thinking mind just can't be grasped)...it isn't
> > > > > > SETI...it isn't shape...it isn't anything that human senses perceive
> > > > > > and then apply some sort of belief about what is being
> > > > > > perceived...based upon previously attached beliefs. We don't in our
> > > > > > everyday mode perceive reality as it actually is. We do use
> > > > > > conventions mind agrees upon...for practicality's sake...its just that
> > > > > > in any ultimate sense, these conventions are nothing more than
> > > > > > that...they are not what is actually there. Remove the observer (and
> > > > > > associated senses) and what exists? Get it? No thinking...no
> > > > > > thoughts...no concepts...no words...no notions of reality....
>
> > > > > > No, this isn't the conventional approach to things ontological nor
> > > > > > epistemological....yet, the exercise can be of enormous value in my
> > > > > > experience. No, I'm not attempting to impose a belief system upon you
> > > > > > or anyone else...in fact, it is almost like a diminution of belief if
> > > > > > anything at all!
>
> > > > > > So, yes, how does one think about not thinking!!!
>
> > > > > > Well...we have gone down this road quite often Lee...and you stop
> > > > > > after only a couple of paces which is fine.
>
> > > > > > For me, I hunger to know beyond my own set of beliefs...which are
> > > > > > almost all things that I've attached to long ago and were formed based
> > > > > > upon words...and, not having created those words...there is little
> > > > > > that I actually know associated with these terms fed to me by others.
>
> > > > > > To do this search, deconstruction [of beliefs] seems to be one method.
> > > > > > It isn't a road often traveled nor does it seem to be for everyone. So
> > > > > > be it!
>
> > > > > > On May 4, 1:47 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hey Om,
>
> > > > > > > Don't be shocked mate you might have missed this bit:
>
> > > > > > > ' I must though disagree with you about concepts not existing without
> > > > > > > somebody to concive of them. Sure I could probably think of a concept
> > > > > > > or two where this is applicable, time though is not one of them.'
>
> > > > > > > I like you exanples OM, but we know in a scientific way what colours
> > > > > > > are, and yes without the eyes to sense them, they still exist. The
> > > > > > > same with sound waves, yes of course with out the ears to hear and the
> > > > > > > brain to make sense of them, we can ask do they really exist, but the
> > > > > > > answer must be yes.
>
> > > > > > > Think of it like this. SETI have been listening to radio waves from
> > > > > > > space for many years now, prior to SETI being setup, where these radio
> > > > > > > signals simply not there? Yes of course they where, we just didn't
> > > > > > > have the now how to listen to them.
>
> > > > > > > There is a valid reason why we call somethings inventions and others
> > > > > > > discoverys.
>
> > > > > > > I'm trying hard to Grok yoru meaning but you know that old fashioned
> > > > > > > reasoning keeps interfearing.
>
> > > > > > > On May 4, 5:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "…Naaaa I do not think that is what you are saying. " – Lee
>
> > > > > > > > Lee, in many ways, it is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> > > > > > > > First, a few examples: Color – we perceive color(s)…and different
> > > > > > > > people perceive colors differently for one another too. And I'm not
> > > > > > > > even thinking about the color blind nor the totally blind here. With
> > > > > > > > no human brain, what we know as color just will not exist. There may
> > > > > > > > be some sort of vibration/movement in the universe but there will be
> > > > > > > > no color because it takes a human being to see them. Please don't add
> > > > > > > > other life forms to the equation, the principle is the same. No
> > > > > > > > perceiver, no color.
>
> > > > > > > > That is only one thing. How about country music? Again, while there
> > > > > > > > may be vibrations/movement, without a person to 'translate' these
> > > > > > > > vibrations into what we call country music, there just isn't any such
> > > > > > > > thing. It is a concept (country music) and doesn't exist without mind.
>
> > > > > > > > I really was shocked when you said that you disagreed with me about
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment