If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 86

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Angie

So you want me to become a fundamentalist now ? Just to get rid of my current heart and get a new one.. The sweet Lab Dab of which would sound like music to my ears ? 😆 ...I ain't saying my heart is antwacky and its melody passe ..but I have every right to get bored hearing the same beat / tune for long ...I need a change ..Do you too need a change ? ( Or have ya already done with that ? 😛 ) Be honest ..We can barter the hearts and see if that works wonders for us .. <<< 😆 << Kidding .. 😆

Hic !

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: Aya.

Aya ... WTH ...😆

Are you sure you are playing around with Signatures or are ya playing out the minds of the innocent readers like me who watch such changes keenly ... you Evil thing .. 😆

Oh! Yeah ..and then you are always playing that incessant Peek - a - boo !! with me ..In so many days / nights ...I haven't seen ya online at the same time when I'm on ...which is crazy ..Do you even exist ? huh! Its high time I started playing too ...my game would be to Catch You .. 😈 ..Catch you online that is . .😆 .. ( For the starters of course .. )

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I am not sure how to interpret the "physical counterparts" phrase in your sentence. Physical as in something that has inertial mass / gravitational mass? Please clarify.

physical as in something that's logically possible. Space curves around objects like the sun? Space as in 3D that is "curving"?

What do I believe is not as important as what's been proven. What's been proven, among other things concerning GR, is the geodetic effect where space-time is warped because of the presence of massive bodies and frame dragging wherein space-time is pulled around by a spinning mass. I don't see a reason for disbelief here. I am not a physicist by profession. I will take their word for it.

As for other predictions of GR which have come true, we have deflection of light by gravity, gravitational redshift, precession of mercury's orbit, gravitational time dilation, etc.

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/GR.html

I can't limit my knowledge to my perceptions. I have to trust what's been proven and go with it. If they are spending billions of dollars sending space probes and building telescopes to find out the answers and we don't have the resources (mental/financial) to independently verify their findings, what other choice do we have?

again, i am not disputing the correctness of that math. Heck, i should be getting a nobel prize if i could. Again, i am disputing some of the interpretations people have made (including einstein at a later time), which has spawned off an entire pop science culture that includes back to the past kind of nonsense.


Birdie, what do you mean by "nothing can move in space-time"?!

sorry that was not well put. The question was how can anything move in time? I am using the same math you guys have been relying on to say you cant have velocity in the time dimension. That would be self-referential. Now if we still know we are moving, that must mean there is no time dimension as a physical phenomena. Time is just an abstract measure. So if we dont have time dimension, talking about space-time as a physical phenomena is nonsense. Use space-time all you want, but as an abstract dimension, dont confuse it for the real thing.

Well, let's see. If most of science relies on empirical proofs, math relies on deductive logic. Is logic empirical? I believe I asked this question in one of my previous posts in this thread. I also answered that, in my opinion, logic is not empirical so your assertion that everything that is mathematical might not be experimentally provable is correct in my opinion. But, and this is a big one, if "time travel" as a concept is supported by math, I wouldn't dispute the logic behind it. Provable? May be not. Nonsensical? No way!

Originally posted by: _Angie_

Let me try and clear up now ----

Some fudamentalists took offence at Heidi's Hindu goddess costume during Halloween. I suggested that they need to have a "change of Heart" and not take every little thing so seriously. That was figurative for change of mentality. Hope I m clear now. Why would I want anyone to turn into a fundamentalist ...we have more than required already 😲

No I wouldnt part with my heart for anything as that makes me... ME 😆

No heart ...no circulation of blood ...no oxygen to brain...no ME unless there exists something beyond... like these people with NDE are suggesting 🤔

Angie ...😆

My statement was FIGURATIVE too .. 😆 ...Not a literal change of heart you see... Your comment that I have marked in BOLD means much ..Think of it ..😆 ..As this debate defo has a spiritual / emotional 4th / 5th dimension .. That those who rant the physics and refuse to reckon anything beyond that won't understand ...But you might ..as my whims / notions suggest .. << The whole point ..God can't be found ...just with MATH and PHYSICS ..unless we add other unseen, occult and beyond mundane things to get a whiff of him ...Unseen yet existing things as Fear ...Greed ...(SOUL too ) and even something as blissful ( And a but spicy <<again figurative 😛 ) as the LOVE <<<< 😆


Alright I must now get back to my oujja board ..and call a few Lovely Souls there ..

Gotta shoot through ..

Vintu ... 😛

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

But why do you think that every dimension has to be spatial in nature? Dimension means number of coordinates needed to represent an object. Of course we need a fourth one to distinguish between time. The chair on which I am sitting, if you represent that only with x, y, z, how will you differentiate between me sitting there and when it is empty? We need a 4th dimension for that, a fourth coordinate, doesn't mean that it has to follow the rules of space, it's not a 4th dimension of space.

so it has no physical explanation, it is just a math construct. And that's what i have been saying.

As to motion, of course we are moving in time. We are moving in future, aren't we? Of course it makes sense relative to a frame. We feel moving always in "normal" time because we are always at rest in our own frame. Increasing velocity will slow our time as compared to another observer. Thus, he will feel normal because he is at rest in his own frame. But within another frame, his time will be seen passing as slow. Returning back will show that you lost time.

not really. moving in future means moving in time. How can you move in time? What would be your velocity in the time dimension? There is no such thing because you would get a number which is time divided by time, a dimensionless number whereas velocity should be a dimensioned number.

I read this analogy somewhere. Consider two directions North and West as time and space. When you are not moving in west i.e. space, you are moving towards North i.e. time. Your velocity is fixed, c(four velocity). If you move towards West, you will move less towards North. Meaning you are moving less in time now. If you could theoretically achieve c in West aka space, you won't move in North aka time.

And wouldn't FTL give imaginary results, not time reversal? Isn't the equation sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)? v=c will give 0, but v>c will give imaginary number.

CTL, Godel's brainchild allows for time to cycle back on itself. It's again just one mathematical solution based on the geometrical interpretation of GR. If you go by that, you get retrocausality. But retrocausality would break all logical/ physical phenomena as we understand them. Since we cant prove it anyway, I would classify it as "blind speculation". But the fact that people are willing to discuss it, including renowned physicists, means we should be ready to discuss other "untestable" theories. For physicists to claim that what they have is based on science (when it is really only speculation) and then to dismiss other plausibilties is intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

There was no battle won. 😆 I still stand by other things I have said. Just because electrons can't decay doesn't mean that body doesn't.

Freethinka ..😆

I concur with that ..BUT ...There is one point that you had promised to enlighten me over ...( after reading all the reference material ) A. What causes the beheaded bodies to move for long ..And keeping along that line ..I would also like to put another question to the consideration of the people here ..

B. You said that Brain is what keeps the Body ALIVE ..and ACTIVE ... So please tell me what keeps Amoeba ( A single cell structure without traces of any brains alive and kicking ? Err! moving i mean 😆 << Reminds me of someone .May be Myself 😆 << Kidding .. ..Not just the amoeba but even the Virus particles ...that sneak into the right T Cell with fascinating precision ..They are RNA structures ..And let's not resort to They are Not alive or Dead ..Cause there can't be an intermediate state for a already moving orgasm ..Or let's consider the bacteria .

So if we assume a program in their RNA / DNA structures is what causes the vitality ..Where does the vitality come from ? The program ? Nohohoho 😆 ..Its The SOUL ☺️ ..Yehahahahahaha ! ..The soul is the energy that keeps such brainless organism alive and moving ...NOT THE BRAIN << Point PROVEN 😈

Thank you ...

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If it is just us - can we be immortal? How essential is life.Does death become meaningless if our brain and identity can live forever.

If it is not us - then where is the essence of us?

On a serious note, the brain interprets what is sensed by the receptors (the 5 senses) and its attendant limitations. We are surrounded by raw data. Our perception of the world is limited by our sense organs and our nervous system.

For eg lets take perception of color-

White light is a mixture of waves of varying wavelengths. The retina on the back of each eye contains neurons (photoreceptors) that respond (via electrical signals) to light. Among the types of photoreceptors are rods and cones. Cone cells are the first step in the nervous system that gives rise to the experience of color. There are three types of cone cells in the eye, each of which is tuned to respond most strongly to a particular wavelength: short-, medium-, and long-wavelength cones (S-cones, M-cones, L-cones, respectively).

Absorption range of each type overlaps with the others. A single cone does not tell you anything about color. That interpretation is by the nervous system. So we can say that color is not the property of the material world but of the brain and people can and do differ in their perception of these senses. The same can be applied to other senses like taste, touch, sound, taste. "Supertasters" have more sensitive taste buds and taste things differently than the majority.

^^ Some options could be -

- Improvement in technology that allows one to communicate one's experience in a more complete manner than available today (includes all species of animals, birds, trees...)

- Ability to transcend the confines of our brain/body to experience reality as it truly is

... any other?

Half my Sunday gone in self talk !!! 😲 I m off to make the most of whatever little is left of my precious Sunday !

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

What makes you think so?

There. Context. Things are so much better with context.

I've been living, breathing in this body for years now, but the question "Who am I" still confounds me. A human, an Indian, a South Indian, a student, an employee, an immigrant, a liberal, a democrat, a socialist, a geek, an avid reader, a movie goer...there are so many things that I am. But to piece together an ID that just clicks, makes sense and appeals to my psyche, seems impossible.

So if your science ever figures out "Who Am I", let me know, I've been searching ever since.