100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > creativesoul
|
|
|
Geez! For Pete's sake. I never realized how many folk cannot think for themselves. The sheer number of 'effin media puppets is saddening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't want to see is another quick fix that turns into a fiasco as the health care crap I am now paying triple what I was before and my deductions are double.. This isn't the way to do it IMO. Did you go to the Affordable Health Care Act website? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The facts of the matter are clear. There is a wide range of talents and ability within people. Not all folk are good at the same things. In America, there is no excuse for not having cultivated an economic(socio-political) system which is capable of providing all types of folk with a means to be successful, if by that I mean being able earn a decent wage - doing what they're good at - in order to live in reasonable comfort.
Our economy isn't a free market and it never has been. There is no such thing. Even Adam Smith - the father of capitalism - was against patents, coercion, corporationism, and any laws and/or principles which created an inability for one to be held accountable for the negative consequences that their actions had on the populace. As this pertains to the OP... Why shouldn't it be the case that all jobs be required to pay a living wage? A living wage is one that enables someone to live and prosper in today's society - at today's level of living expenses - without the need for public assistance. Who in their right mind would be willing to argue that not all law-abiding citizens of The United States Of America 'deserve' to have a decent paying job available, especially when those jobs and the socio-economic landscape is created, influenced, and cultivated by us! I don't get some folk. It's as if they think that some people do not deserve to be paid enough to live on. We aren't born into society by choice. One's birth place and circumstances should not be the sole determining factor of whether or not they can be self-sufficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
General Relativity is not an easy concept. Combined with the fact that space/time exists independent of time and space outside of space/time, you get an accurate solution to cosmic events but a counter intuitive explanation of the expanding universe. The common view is that space/time is a bubble of existence that began at the big bang. As the bubble expands everything inside the bubble moves apart with the speed of expansion plus whatever is happening locally. This combination of speed and distance allows for objects to travel much faster than the speed of light while being held to the speed limit of light in local space/time. A similar event occurs at the event horizon of a black hole. General Relativity allows for space/time to be distorted (sucked into) a black hole's gravity well at speeds in excess of the speed of light. So if a particle of light (photon) is traveling out from the black hole but space/time is falling into the black hole at or above the speed of light, the photon can never escape making the hole black. The event horizon is the point of distance from the gravity source where space/time distortion equals the speed of light. Light, being a massless particle is not directly affected by the pull of gravity, only the distortion of space/time. Indeed. I've looked at the field equations, and they are waaay above my understanding of maths. Even the first paper is difficult because it is so counterintuitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
It seems to me that the most general description of time is the space between events. interval, not space... space would be distance or volume... i look at how we use the word, in all aspects, and that's what tells me there is no such thing as time... it's just a word we devised to know when to not be late Distance is the measurement of the space between two points. Similarly volume is the measurement of the space in a given area. Time is the space between events, and your belief isn't required in order for that to be true. We measure time. Time is not the measurement itself, like with your examples. The difference is nuanced but crucial for understanding. No offense intended moe, but you're not making a whole lot of sense here. If there is no such thing as time, then what sense does it make for you to say that it is an interval. An interval is a section of time. Furthermore, intervals exist regardless of whether of not we've invented a word for them "intervals". The same is true of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
We perceive the passage of time. We perceive the sun and moon. We can perceive change as it takes place. It simply doesn't follow that any of those things is equal to perception. ... then what is it? your telling what it's not, but not telling what it is, lol... Well Moe, there are some things that require us to figure out what they are not, in order to help us figure out what they are. Another common way to figure out what some thing is, is by our looking at how we use the word(the name of the thing). In fact, all completely manmade things(concepts that are existentially dependent upon humans) can be identified in this way. So, if time is manmade then all we need to do to figure out what time is, is look at how we ordinarily use the term "time". It seems to me that the most general description of time is the space between events. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
We perceive the passage of time. We perceive the sun and moon. We can perceive change as it takes place. It simply doesn't follow that any of those things is equal to perception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. how is that not a perception? you "think" you might be moving backwards? in the way your describing this, it's not time dilation.. just a visual perspective on the objects in your field of view... i agree and understand everything you wrote, except that it has nothing to do with time itself... The bolded example was meant only to lay a bit of groundwork. There are some basic things that need to be understood prior to getting into time dilation. One of those things is grasping the importance that frames of reference have to movement. ...time dilation means that time speeds up or slows down... i do not think this is possible, since time is nothing but a thought, no substance to it... unless there's a quantum level that i'm not familiar with, which is a good possibility, time is nothing but what you, me everyone else perceives it to be... Time is whatever someone says it is, or 'perceives' it to be? Nuh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
yea, sure... maybe someday i'll be smart enough to understand what an optical viewpoint is... in the meantime while i'm trying to understand, think about what a perception is... nothing you said has anything to do with time, it's a perception of reality... Earlier you said it was a concept. So now, it is a concept and a perception of reality? I'm quite familiar with academic sense of "perception", but I'm fairly confident that you're not using the term academically. That's not a problem, but my not knowing what you mean by "perception" will inevitably lead to unnecessary confusion. I don't like guessing games either, so... Do everyone a favor and define "perception" for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
...time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... Two things here. First, unless you can somehow get into everyone else's mind and experience time as they do, there's no way that you can know that time is a little different for everyone. Second, if time is a perception, then what is it a perception of? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
...when someone can show me what time is physically, rather than a concept, then i can see it a different way... This line of enquiry may be of help. So, are you saying that concepts aren't ever physical things, or that physical things cannot be concepts? I mean, it seems that you're claiming that time is a concept, and presumably that all concepts are manmade things, and thus not real, or physical, or some such. Is that much about right, so far, with regard to what you're calling "time"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events? yes, it's called optical viewpoints... nothing to do with time... your time is a little different than others time... have you ever wondered why police when investigating something they ask so many witnesses? because everyone has a different perception of reality... 5 will say he wore a blue shirt, 8 other will say it's red.. some will say it took 5 minutes, some will say it was 30 minutes... time is a perception, and it's a little different for everyone... My example has nothing to people's opinions on what took place. Not much sense in my continuing here. If you cannot understand the basics of time dilation, then you'll not be able to understand time travel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
mightymoe:...90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... creative: Oh my. What insight. Remarkable. Tell me though, because evidently I'm confused a bit by such revolutionary insight into the shortcomings of modern science. Exactly what would count as being "the wrong math"? the math is based on what they think they know... what about what they don't know? we have never been to deep space, and only one probe might be out of our solar system (voyager)... so everything they are basing any knowledge on is an educated guess, based on what they know from our solar system... So, you saying that unless math is based upon what we don't know, it's wrong? Nuh. We've never been inside of bacteria either, but that doesn't stop us from gaining knowledge about it. Point being that our having knowledge of X doesn't necessarily require our being in or to X. Interesting how you've implied that educated guesses are somehow inferior forms of drawing conclusions. Turn about is always fair play, especially in philosophy. If being an educated guess isn't acceptable for actually being and/or gaining knowledge on your view, then how on earth do you expect to claim knowledge of what you're talking about here? You have no working knowledge of the math, science, and/or knowledge that you've been rejecting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
More importantly though, do you understand what I talked about in the earlier post with regard to time being different to observer A and B regarding the same set of events?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement). Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. but thats not really time No. That is about how time passes. Particularly, how it's passage is relative to observation and motion. everyone sees time time as something physical when it's not, it's just an equation to make the math work... time is a concept, a unit of measure that we made to plan the day... seems the only way if it is a physical substance, the everything in the universe would carry it's own "version" of time, like gravity... This is a report of your thought/belief about the matter at hand. Rather than get into where it's mistaken, may I suggest that you set all your preconceived notions aside in order to actually consider other ways of looking at it? Until that is done, you'll not be able to understand the positions that you're rejecting. If one cannot understand a position, then one's rejection cannot be meaningfully justified. scientists get theories in their heads and then try to prove them right, yes? Yes and no. Scientific theories are verifiable/falsifiable. So, part of 'proving' them right is the very ability to be able to prove them wrong as well. ...when they need to invent something to make their theory work, they do...dark matter, string theory, dark energy are inventions of science to keep trying to make the math right so they can get the theory accepted... Well, I suppose that that's one way to look at it, but it's not the only way. Explanations, such as dark matter, string theory, and dark energy are not properly called "inventions" of science, if we are placing those things into the general category of inventions, like typewriters and automobiles. If you do not mean "inventions" like that, then you're using the term "invention" quite carelessly. We posit such things as dark matter/energy, because observation requires it. Our maths warrant our positing them, which is remarkably different than saying that positing them 'saves our math'. It's no different than our continually adding new knowledge to any other knowledge base. Knowledge is accrued. "space time" and time itself is another of these invented formulas to make the math right This is just plain nonsense. Formulas are mathematical constructs. Spacetime isn't just a mathematical construct. To quite the contrary. Mathematics is used to describe observation. Space and time can be observed in any number of ways. In fact,and ironically enough, the attribution of causality necessarily presupposes both. In other words, in your fervor to reject time and to put forth your own misguided belief about why others do what they do, you've not taken note of the fact that everything you've said here has been facilitated by the very existence of that which you're claiming to reject. 90% of everything they "know" (i use that term loosely) about deep space is based on mathematical formulas, so if they are starting off with the wrong math, by inventing a new formula to make the math work, then by default most everything they know is a bit off... Oh my. What insight. Remarkable. Tell me though, because evidently I'm confused a bit by such revolutionary insight into the shortcomings of modern science. Exactly what would count as being "the wrong math"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is time travel possible?
|
|
Understanding time dilation involves understanding how frames of reference work(understanding our assessment of movement).
Understanding assessing movement requires at least three objects within the same frame. Think about sitting in your car at a stop, foot on the brake, and looking at the car next to you through the passenger window. Your visual field includes only the inside of your car and the car next to you. I'm sure that we've almost all had this wierd experience:If the car beside you moves forward slowly and steadily, it will feel as though your car is actually moving backwards, even though you know you have your foot on the brake. That feeling is the result of not having a third object in the same frame of reference from which to determine which car is actually moving. It's impossible to tell which is actually moving, because relative to one another they are both moving... However, if another object outside of both cars were in view, such as a light post, you would be able to tell that it wasn't your car moving by virtue of noting that the relationship between your car and the post remained unchanged, while the relationships between the other car and your car, and/or the other car and the post had. Assessment of movement involves observation. We see objects by virtue of their reflection/absorption of light. Roughly speaking, light bounces off them and into our eyes. All of this takes time. In the scenario above, all three objects are so close together that the difference in the amount of time it takes for the light to reflect into our eyes is negligible, however, if three objects in the same frame are spaced far enough apart, and given the right circumstances, we will experience time dilation first hand. Imagine two observers witnessing the same collision of two objects. If observer A is moving away from the two objects at near light speed, the amount of time it would take for him/her to observe the collision would be much greater than observer B, if B were standing still in close proximity to the collision. That is because of the amount of time it would take for the light to reach observer A is much greater than observer B. The observers would not witness the collision at the same time, even though the event only happened once. One consequence, of course, is that both observers could offer accurate accounts that would not seem to agree with one another, because they would include remarkably different times of occurence. In addition, because observer A is travelling away from the event at close to light speed, each movement making up the event would take longer and longer to reach him/her. The result would be that the event would actually be taking much longer to take place to observer A than to B. The event would be observed as happening in slower and slower motion to A, but not to B, so the overall time that the event required to be complete would also be remarkably different to observer A and observer B. This begins to lay some groundwork for the relativity of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what is the meaning of life?
|
|
Good and evil aren't just words. "Good" and "evil" are words, but they're much more than that in the same way that "murder" is a word, but murder is much more than just a word.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what is the meaning of life?
|
|
good and evil are just words, whats evil to some might not be evil to others... a man kills another mans son, by accident... the sons father overcome with grief kills the man that killed his son... both mothers think think both men are evil, when in fact, none were evil... it's like beauty, everyone sees it differently Oh geez. Rubbish. It doesn't follow from the fact that folk see things differently that there's no such thing as good and bad or right and wrong or good and evil. This IS a philosophy forum, so at least make a valid argument for ****'s sake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what is the meaning of life?
|
|
Metalwing:Ignoring self awareness, wouldn't "growth" give a universal meaning to all life forms. They all "want' to live, procreate, expand their territory! As the more complex lifeforms, with the ability to think, "live" by expanding their pleasure, making friends in a social environment even if you are a mammal or a bird. Well, I don't think that growth itself gives meaning to anything at all. Every example of giving meaning that we have at our disposal is of a human giving meaning. That doesn't mean that only humans can do it, but I think that saying that anything other than humans can do it requires some kind of strong justification. Even if we limit the lifeforms considered to more complex creatures of self awareness, wouldn't growth explain our need to expand our knowledge, pleasure, and experiences? I don't see how growth shoulders such an explanatory burden. We may all grow in different ways but it would seem that the need to expand knowledge, spirituality, love,and other constructs of the conscious mind would be a universal denominator of life. This can't be true. There are too many folk who do not believe in things such as spirituality. Some others do not believe in knowledge, love or many other constructs of the conscious mind. Many folk do not even believe in such a thing as minds. Given all that, I see no reason to think that what you've called "a universal denominator" qualifies meets the criterion for being one. Perhaps "hunger" would be a better choice for a descriptor word, for the universal meaning of life as we all hunger for meaning in a conscious and unconscious way for all the concepts discussed above. To say that "the universal meaning of life is we all hunger for meaning" falls prey to being a bit meaningless in the same way that A=A is literally meaningless. Meaning requires distinction to be drawn and maintained. To use the term "meaning" as a description of what meaning is doesn't qualify as an acceptable explanation. BBQ is always good! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what is the meaning of life?
|
|
Well whether or not I agree with the simplification all depends upon what "it" refers to. "It" to some would be "wine, women, and song!" To some "it" would be "family". To some "it" would be "work". Even a pattern with infinite variation is still a pattern.  Not sure if I'm following here metalwing, but in the long run I think that we agree. Wine, women, and song is different for each of us? Family is different for each of us? Work is different for each of us? It seems to me that you are saying that what means the most to each of us differs from person to person, as the examples show. I would agree. But then "it" would be referring to the abstract idea of what means the most to people in their own lives. If what means the most in one's own life equates to the meaning of life in general, then we've stopped talking about life(in general) and began discussing individual lives. The question, it seems to me, is talking about life in general. That's whay I say that there is no such thing as the meaning of life. Even a pattern with infinite variation is still a pattern. Forget the life of an individual. It varies from one to another. If the light of life could be analyzed as a spectrum, as is any star, the galaxy would still show a pattern. Looking deeper, our galactic cluster would show another, much different, pattern. The strings of structure which bind our universe into strips of galactic groups show yet another. Should life be any different? Perhaps the meaning of life is as simple as "growth".  I suppose I'm working from the premiss that all meaning is attributed. Thus, the meaning of life, is the meaning that each of us attributes to it, rather than meaning which is assumed to be inherent within life itself. There is agreement it seems in some of our respective thought/belief, but it also seems to diverge. To me, there is no meaning that doesn't consist entirely of thought/belief. Therefore, prior to agents capable of thought/belief, there could be no meaning. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
