Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Greg M

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Greg M

  1. It should come to no surprise to anyone here to see government funded "science" go down the tubes. Here is an example of a NASA electromagnetic specialist investigating the hot scientific topic of prayer. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15369444/detail.html
  2. I see this topic has been unlocked; it is now OK to post on this subject?
  3. Hello Bob, the work of Alfven is fascinating. He was a smart guy and as you say not a crank. I find it interesting in his speech you link to his criticism on the state of plasma and thermonuclear physics. Quote: “The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come. I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back. The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them."
  4. Yes a little. I do not think it is possible. What have you come up with?
  5. Yes it appears but not really. Like a pencile appears bent in that water but isnt. To say time can speed up or slow down is to steal the concept of "time". Otherwise what unit is used to measure the change in time?
  6. I do not know much about it and I am a lay person but I will attempt an explanation. The island of stability is a theory of creating an isotope with a “magic number” of neutrons and protons with a long enough half-life to sustain fusion. The problem is that when tried we find a substantial repelling force between neutrons preventing them from being packed together that close. If neutrons can’t be crammed together so tightly then sustained fusion is not possible current theories of Neutron Stars are falsified. Have you found anything interesting in your research?
  7. That is like saying is Ayn Rands theory of ethics even a theory because I don't see any math? There is no number 7 in reality. Math is just a conceptual tool.
  8. Relativity Theory Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. This leaves open the question of what we are measuring when we determine the speed of light. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub-atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects. With the Special Theory gone, and the universe in communication with its parts effectively in real-time, there can be no time travel and space and time are independent. Common sense has always suggested that this was so. Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects. This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object. But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
  9. Something like this is easily explained with EU theory where the current gravity model must essentially insert unobservable postulations to attempt and explanination and then it still comes up short.
  10. The movie claims we can measure these currents and magnetic fields with radio telescopes.
  11. I really dont see how the above invalidates EU theory? As far as I can tell there areWAY more contradictions in the standard model. Have you seen the movie? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=47...h&plindex=0
  12. Interesting. Read this, then comment: http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf
  13. I just started researching this topic and so far it seems to make much more sense to me than the current gravity based cosmological model. I am only a laymen with basic college physics and astronomy. It is concerning that the current model says nothing of electrical forces in the universe and the Electric Universe model would account for several philosophical conundrums such as the ‘vacuum of space’ and the ‘Big Bang’. I am wondering if anyone else has heard of this theory or if there is anyone here more qualified than myself that better judge such things?
  14. Well that's my point. Time has to be consistent because we made it that way. In order for time as a concept to have identity it has to be consistent. An inch an inch everywhere. An inch only has meaning because we are specific. How is time different than any other sort of measurement?
  15. I realize that time does not apply to existence as a whole because time is within existence. But in order for time as a concept to have identity doesn’t it have to be consistent? Isn’t an inch an inch everywhere? How is time different than any other sort of measurement? Exactly that.
  16. We perceive a world of entities which come to be, move and change, and cease to be. These entities, changes and movements all exist, yet some exist, or last, or endure, more or less than others. Our identification of this more or less of existence - the "how long" of existence - is time. Every existent whatever can be measured by time. For example, time measures entities: that man has existed for 50 years. And so, time measures the quantities, qualities relations - and so on through every category - of those entities. So, time is a measure of existence. This is based on induction. I invite you to review all of existence, trying to find a single existent which you cannot measure by time. You will fail to find one. (Edit: Except of course existence as a whole.) Commonsensically, by reference to the watch on your wrist you can measure the existence of anything within the range of your senses whether it moves or just sits there, e.g., that house across the street has been there for the last 5 minutes. Even a pre-school child knows that the answer to, "How long did that thing exist?," is always a number of time units. In fact, if you wished to specify the aspect of a motion which is most fundamentally measured by time, you would have to say that time measures how long that motion exists. This is compatible with Ayn Rand's remarks in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ch. 6. "The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, epistemologically, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars: time— i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness."
  17. I have no confusion about the nature of time and I never asked for an explanation of relativity. I hold that relativity isnt the answer to the evidence provided by the clock experiment. If as you say, "Time is just the relative degree of change between two sets of entities." Then time measures the quantities, qualities relations - and so on through every category -of those entities. In short, time is a measure of existence. Time is a measure of existence, and measurement is a process carried out by human beings. Measurement is a kind of comparison of two existents. But we only arrive at the concept of time by selecting one particular (kind of) existent, and using it to measure all the rest. When such an existent is selected, it becomes the time standard. The standard is what gives time its uniqueness and universality: without a standard, we would have many "times," many different mutual relations between the durations of individual things. When we have a standard, we have one time which measures them all. Any other version of time devoides it of meaning.
  18. I don't buy it. I think the philosophy of objectivism validates absolute time. Time is universal, unique, and eternally uniform. We know it is because that's the way we made it. We had to make it that way in order to apply arithmetic; in order for our time units to possess identity. If we made it non-universal, non-unique or non-uniform, we would be fudging our units, and so would be unable to retain in our theories all the facts implicit in our perceptions. Absolute time's anchor to reality is the law of causality, a corollary of the law of identity, the basic law of logic. As such, it is immune to experimental refutation. I don't think the experiment results of the experiment with the clocks validates Einstein's notion of "time dilation". The experiments actually confirm a very different proposition, to wit that some moving clocks run slow! Those clocks really run slower. All one has to do is count the ticks.
  19. Ok if there is no physical change in the clocks then why does one clock come back to earth running behind another clock? I thought the whole point to the experiment is that the clocks do change? It would violate the law of idenity because to count is to count something. No time standard exists in nature; a standard arises from a human choice. If the units chooses arent equal all knowledge of quantity is lost and arbitrary. To identify quantity, we require equal units. The time standard must be immutable if you are to deal with time arithmetically; i.e., if you are to measure time. Why? If different units of time are not equal, then no arithmetic operations on them are valid. To so much as add or subtract times, you must know that the units are equal. If the units are not equal, the arithmetic results are meaningless: 5 seconds plus 2 hours equals 7 what? In fact, 1 plus 1 does not equal 2 unless both units are the same. If the units are not the same, arithmetic is useless. To count is to count something. Every sum is a sum of something. A sum identifies only what is common to all the things counted. You must identify a unit which is common to the whole collection of things you wish to count in order to identify your sum. Counting, and therefore number and arithmetic in general, rest on the law of identity.
  20. Something has to be slowing them. Things don't change without a cause. Also wouldn’t any concept of time that isn’t universal, unique, and eternally uniform violate the Law of Identity?
  21. If time is existence, measured by means of a clock, which was chosen for its immutability and validated by reference to causality. This means that. Existence is what we measure by time. Measurement is the human process by which we identify time. A clock is the physical instrument of time measurement. The clock's immutability is a logical pre-condition of time measurement. Its immutability is validated by the principle of causality. So, can time change? Based on the above definition it cannot. On the above principles, we can validly imagine sequences of standard clocks in different places, issuing their uniform ticks from everlasting unto everlasting. The ticks are all equal, every duration is measured by them, every event falls between some two of them. Time is universal, unique, and eternally uniform. We know it is because that's the way we made it. We had to make it that way in order to apply arithmetic; in order for our time units to possess identity. So why is it that when a atomic clock is flown around that world at high speeds it runs slower than a stationary clock? Something is slowing those clocks. What can it be???
  • Create New...