Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
By Xris
#175333
Concepts become objects when they withstand questioning.When they explain observations.Gaedes ropes perform this function. Two filaments, one electrical one magnetic permanently join every atom.They also form the centre of atoms.Forming taught ropes that cause the effects of gravity.When the atom pulses it transmits EM energy along these ropes.They exist because they are a rational explanation of quantum mechanics and EM radiation.
Location: Cornwall UK
By The Truth
#175347
DarwinX wrote:You can't curve space because space is 3 dimensional.
Yes, you can curve space. But such curving is extremely difficult to convey in a 2 or 3 dimensional image. We humans like to picture concepts in our minds using things with which we are familiar, and we are unfamiliar, and thus unable to conceive of, what a curved 3 dimensional space looks like.

But perhaps it's easier to envision if you think of it in a slightly different way. Richard Feynman gave a very simple explanation as to why light is seen to travel in a straight line. If you envision light as traveling as waves, (these can be waves in a quantum field of some type, or purely mathematical constructs, if you like). But a peculiar aspect of waves is that they interfere, either constructively, or destructively with each other. Feynman explained that if you plot all the paths that a photon (a wave) can take to get from point A to point B, and you sum them all up, such that some waves constructively interfere and some waves destructively interfere, then the only paths that will avoid destructive interference are the waves that travel in a straight line. A simple way to think of this is, that for every path that strays either to the left or to the right, there is a mirror image of that path that will cancel it out. This is true for every path, except for the straight one. For the straight path, there is no other path that can cancel it out. Thus when you sum up all the possible paths, the only ones that survive are the straight ones. And that's why you always see light traveling in a straight line.

However, this isn't always true, or at least it doesn't appear to be. If you have ever experienced a heat mirage, a phenomena where a road on a hot day will give the illusion of water. This is caused by the fact that the air close to the road is hotter than the air above, and waves travel faster through hot air than they do through cool air. So light from just the right angle will find that the quickest path from point A to point B is to bend slightly, and travel through the hot air, rather than through the denser cool air. Thus what you're actually seeing is the reflection of the sky, caused by the bending of the light as it travels through warmer and cooler air. But why does this happen if light always travels in a straight line? It happens because the shortest path isn't just a matter of space, but also a matter of time. Generally the straight path through space will also be the quickest path through time, but not always, and as it turns out, the key to avoiding destructive interference is to take the shortest path, not just through space, but also through time. The shortest path through spacetime isn't always the straight one. It there are variations in the space between point A and point B, then the "shortest" path may indeed be the curved one. With a heat mirage, the path of the light curves, because light travels faster through hot air, than it does through cool air. But it gives us a simple proof, that the path of a light wave can curve if there are variations in the possible paths.

Okay, so the heat mirage example shows us that light waves can travel in a curved line. But what does this have to do with why Einstein described gravity as a curvature in 3 dimensional space? For one simple reason....the speed of light is constant. Thus if light traveling through a vacuum takes a curved path, it can't be because it travels faster along one path than the other, as the light in the heat mirage does. In the example of a heat mirage the path of the light curves because the light travels faster through hot air, than it does through cool air. But in space, both paths are traveling through a vacuum, so the light must travel at the same speed along both paths. But if it's not the rate of speed that makes light take a curved path, then what does? The only other explanation is, that space itself is curved, such that the curved path, is the shorter path. The space around massive objects must be curved if we are to explain why the path of light in a vacuum, bends. You can alter the path of a wave by either altering the difference in space between two paths, or altering the the difference in time. In the heat mirage we alter the difference in time, but in the example of light traveling through a vacuum, we have no choice but to alter the difference in space.

If you stick strictly to QM, then the curvature in space distorts the wave function, such that one side of the wave is no longer a mirror image of the other side, then when you sum up the possible paths, the only remaining path will be a curved one, not a straight one as Feynman described. An object, say an asteroid, passing through a planet's gravitational field will experience a slightly greater distortion on the side nearer the planet, than on the side further away, and this slight difference in distortion will cause the asteroid's path to curve. In essence gravity is not really a force at all, it's merely a distortion of the space through which an object passes. An object's path curves because the probability wave defining its possible paths is distorted, making the curved path, the only possible path.

However it ends up being defined, gravity is a distortion in the wave function describing the path of an object. The cause, or mechanism of this distortion is yet to be determined.
By DarwinX
#175355
Xris wrote:Concepts become objects when they withstand questioning.When they explain observations.Gaedes ropes perform this function. Two filaments, one electrical one magnetic permanently join every atom.They also form the centre of atoms.Forming taught ropes that cause the effects of gravity.When the atom pulses it transmits EM energy along these ropes.They exist because they are a rational explanation of quantum mechanics and EM radiation.
I have given you ample opportunity to explain rope theory rationally but you have failed to do so. By avoiding my questions you are not being logical, rational or cooperative in any way shape or form. Like Bill Gaedes, you avoid answering difficult questions and don't practice what you preach. If rope theory is a rational explanation of EM radiation then explain what forces are holding these ropes together. If you can't or refuse to answer this question, then it means your solution to EM radiation is most likely irrational and illogical.
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell Location: Australia
By Xris
#175356
Then it should be no problem to explain the double slit experiment and also give a credible image that satisfies your reasoning.
Location: Cornwall UK
By Happy recluse
#175357
The Truth wrote:
But why does this happen if light always travels in a straight line? It happens because the shortest path isn't just a matter of space, but also a matter of time. Generally the straight path through space will also be the quickest path through time, but not always, and as it turns out, the key to avoiding destructive interference is to take the shortest path, not just through space, but also through time.
Here's where I get confused. Many paths are quicker than straight lines, but usually we don't therefore conclude that quicker paths are shorter paths. Often we say that the shorter driver distance is not the quicker way to get some where. "Shorter" and "quicker" are different things. Can you explain what you mean or where my confusion lies?
Favorite Philosopher: Kant Location: Michigan
By DarwinX
#175358
The Truth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Yes, you can curve space. But such curving is extremely difficult to convey in a 2 or 3 dimensional image. We humans like to picture concepts in our minds using things with which we are familiar, and we are unfamiliar, and thus unable to conceive of, what a curved 3 dimensional space looks like.

But perhaps it's easier to envision if you think of it in a slightly different way. Richard Feynman gave a very simple explanation as to why light is seen to travel in a straight line. If you envision light as traveling as waves, (these can be waves in a quantum field of some type, or purely mathematical constructs, if you like). But a peculiar aspect of waves is that they interfere, either constructively, or destructively with each other. Feynman explained that if you plot all the paths that a photon (a wave) can take to get from point A to point B, and you sum them all up, such that some waves constructively interfere and some waves destructively interfere, then the only paths that will avoid destructive interference are the waves that travel in a straight line. A simple way to think of this is, that for every path that strays either to the left or to the right, there is a mirror image of that path that will cancel it out. This is true for every path, except for the straight one. For the straight path, there is no other path that can cancel it out. Thus when you sum up all the possible paths, the only ones that survive are the straight ones. And that's why you always see light traveling in a straight line.

However, this isn't always true, or at least it doesn't appear to be. If you have ever experienced a heat mirage, a phenomena where a road on a hot day will give the illusion of water. This is caused by the fact that the air close to the road is hotter than the air above, and waves travel faster through hot air than they do through cool air. So light from just the right angle will find that the quickest path from point A to point B is to bend slightly, and travel through the hot air, rather than through the denser cool air. Thus what you're actually seeing is the reflection of the sky, caused by the bending of the light as it travels through warmer and cooler air. But why does this happen if light always travels in a straight line? It happens because the shortest path isn't just a matter of space, but also a matter of time. Generally the straight path through space will also be the quickest path through time, but not always, and as it turns out, the key to avoiding destructive interference is to take the shortest path, not just through space, but also through time. The shortest path through spacetime isn't always the straight one. It there are variations in the space between point A and point B, then the "shortest" path may indeed be the curved one. With a heat mirage, the path of the light curves, because light travels faster through hot air, than it does through cool air. But it gives us a simple proof, that the path of a light wave can curve if there are variations in the possible paths.

Okay, so the heat mirage example shows us that light waves can travel in a curved line. But what does this have to do with why Einstein described gravity as a curvature in 3 dimensional space? For one simple reason....the speed of light is constant. Thus if light traveling through a vacuum takes a curved path, it can't be because it travels faster along one path than the other, as the light in the heat mirage does. In the example of a heat mirage the path of the light curves because the light travels faster through hot air, than it does through cool air. But in space, both paths are traveling through a vacuum, so the light must travel at the same speed along both paths. But if it's not the rate of speed that makes light take a curved path, then what does? The only other explanation is, that space itself is curved, such that the curved path, is the shorter path. The space around massive objects must be curved if we are to explain why the path of light in a vacuum, bends. You can alter the path of a wave by either altering the difference in space between two paths, or altering the the difference in time. In the heat mirage we alter the difference in time, but in the example of light traveling through a vacuum, we have no choice but to alter the difference in space.

If you stick strictly to QM, then the curvature in space distorts the wave function, such that one side of the wave is no longer a mirror image of the other side, then when you sum up the possible paths, the only remaining path will be a curved one, not a straight one as Feynman described. An object, say an asteroid, passing through a planet's gravitational field will experience a slightly greater distortion on the side nearer the planet, than on the side further away, and this slight difference in distortion will cause the asteroid's path to curve. In essence gravity is not really a force at all, it's merely a distortion of the space through which an object passes. An object's path curves because the probability wave defining its possible paths is distorted, making the curved path, the only possible path.

However it ends up being defined, gravity is a distortion in the wave function describing the path of an object. The cause, or mechanism of this distortion is yet to be determined.
I once heard Richard Feynman describe the two simultaneous Earth tides - "one tide is being pulled by the moon's gravity while the other tide gets left behind". I found this to be an irrational and unsatisfactory explanation.

No matter how you look at 3 dimensional space around a sphere, you can't bend this space, either physically, mentally or by using any other computer based simulation or modelling. Its logically and rationally impossible to do it. The reason that light bends is because its being pushed or refracted by a medium. When light passes through moving water, the light's direction is being slightly pushed by the moving water. The same happens in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is just a very thin liquid which has the same effect as water. The hot air is moving upwards and causes the light to be pushed up slightly, giving an optical illusion of water on the ground. Note - The light from the horizon line doesn't quite make it to the ground and is pushed up giving a reflection of the sky. Thus, aether is pushing light towards the Earth in the same manner giving the illusion of curved space. Note- Einstein has admitted on a number of occasions that the Aether is necessary and uses the term 'space time continuum' to describe the aether.

-- Updated December 22nd, 2013, 8:40 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:Then it should be no problem to explain the double slit experiment and also give a credible image that satisfies your reasoning.
The only rational explanation of the double slit experiment is that light is a wave. Note - The double slit experiment has been divided into two separate experiments; one with waves and the other with particles. Note - They always use 'invisible particles' to do the particle/wave experiment. Note - These 'invisible particles' are not particles but are waves. If you use tennis balls in lieu of photons you wont get any interference patterns forming. Note - Use a single needle in lieu of a double slit when using tennis balls, golf balls. Thus, we have exposed the magicians bag of tricks.
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell Location: Australia
By Happy recluse
#175363
The Truth wrote: . . . such curving is extremely difficult to convey in a 2 or 3 dimensional image. We humans like to picture concepts in our minds using things with which we are familiar, and we are unfamiliar, and thus unable to conceive of, what a curved 3 dimensional space looks like.

You say that, “the only other explanation is . . . .” I have a reductio ad absurdum argument. Using your premises, as far as I understand them, I want to show that, “the only explanation is that space is curved” is false. One premise is that “such curving is extremely difficult to convey in a 2 or 3 dimensional image.” Later you say we are “unable” to conceive such. I find the word "unable" or "impossible" more useful. I think we are unable to do so because we imagine any curved line within a larger non-curved space.

An alternative explanation is that some beams of light freely choose to curve themselves around objects to get a better look at those objects. Of course, we are unable to conceive of such, but that’s not important. Sure enough, mathematics shows that beams of light curve. I don’t know how mathematics could show that space is curved, although it shows how curves in general work. I’m not worried (yet) about the math because I’m dealing with “possible explanations.” My conclusion is that there are other possible explanations and that none of those is any more unlikely than yours is. I think you would have to prove their unlikeliness by showing it is false that lights beams make choices and that God isn't the direct cause of beams curving.

You might rightly cry that my alternative explanation is absurd, but that’s the point. I think anyone finds willful beams of light difficult or impossible to conceive, so my argument fits with yours there. Maybe God causes those beams to curve. It’s hard to conceive of that, too.

Our ability to conceive things provides of idea of what to look for. I can’t find a jar of peanut butter unless I have some notion of what the thing is. If I came upon a curvature in space, how would I know it?
Favorite Philosopher: Kant Location: Michigan
By Xris
#175365
You are ignoring the fact that the experiment when observed becomes a particle.You even produced Gaedes experiment to prove this point. The anonomly the double slit experiment indicates can only be understod using Gaedes rope hypothesis.The only way cosmic body lensing can be explained is by applying EM ropes.
Location: Cornwall UK
By DarwinX
#175366
Xris wrote:You are ignoring the fact that the experiment when observed becomes a particle.You even produced Gaedes experiment to prove this point. The anonomly the double slit experiment indicates can only be understod using Gaedes rope hypothesis.The only way cosmic body lensing can be explained is by applying EM ropes.
You have fallen under the magicians spell. Particles do not bend, only waves can bend. The photon is a fraud, as I have proven many times on other related posts. See my other post 'The photon is a fraud' for more information. Note - Cosmic body lensing can be more easily explained using aether theory.
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell Location: Australia
By Fanman
#175368
I think that the curvature of space-time is relative to the rate at which light travels and bends when passing through Earth's atmosphere. When light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second as a wave, then the rate that space-time actually curves at, is equivalent to the speed at which the light in our atmosphere bends. We of course don't see or experience any of this happening, because space-time and light are curving / bending so fast, that they are always moving towards an elliptical horizon - so all that we see, is light and space-time travelling in a straight-line, and the speed of light and space-time is so fast, that everything appears to be instantaneous and constant. Thus, space-time is always curving away from us at 299,792,458 meters per second, but because it is always ahead of us along with light, and because the elliptical path is so massive, it appears to us that space-time is moving in a perfectly straight-line. That could be why things that are further away from our reference frame, appear to be moving more slowly, because they are always moving away from us on an elliptical curve with space-time, and exist in a different time-frame.
By Xris
#175372
DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You have fallen under the magicians spell. Particles do not bend, only waves can bend. The photon is a fraud, as I have proven many times on other related posts. See my other post 'The photon is a fraud' for more information. Note - Cosmic body lensing can be more easily explained using aether theory.
There are no particles, no waves.As I just mentioned, you clearly indicated that fact by referring to Gaedes experiment using a laser.
Location: Cornwall UK
By DarwinX
#175384
Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

There are no particles, no waves.As I just mentioned, you clearly indicated that fact by referring to Gaedes experiment using a laser.
Some people think that lasers shoot particles, I hope your not one of those?
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell Location: Australia
By Xris
#175396
DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Some people think that lasers shoot particles, I hope your not one of those?
After I have recommended Gaedes ropes how in hell can you believe I am referring to particles? This simple experiment with a laser disproves the concept of particles and waves.
Location: Cornwall UK
By DarwinX
#175405
Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

After I have recommended Gaedes ropes how in hell can you believe I am referring to particles? This simple experiment with a laser disproves the concept of particles and waves.
At least your half right this time! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell Location: Australia
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


My concern is simply rational. People differ fro[…]

The more I think about this though, many peopl[…]

Wow! This is a well-articulated write-up with prac[…]

@Gertie You are quite right I wont hate all […]