The Deist Objectivist

Science & Technology Physics and Mathematics
61

SL said:

“Were men of all levels of intellect who used concepts of time and space in every day speech, in solving problems, in designing the wheel or the first steam engine morally corrupt for not first having an epistemological agreed definition of what time and space were… and in fact should have delayed all such speech and discovery before any progress were made”

Uh, whoa. I said nothing like the above and you really need to examine why you come to these type of assumptions when reading others post.

A practical consequence of the fact that knowledge is hierarchical and contextual is that man has a responsibility to personally reduce his concepts in order to practice rationality.

SL said:

“So scientists cannot measure seconds and meters in the context of observation without a philosophic foundation of what “space” and “time” “REALLY” is?”

So, a rational man cannot simply accept the unreduced and or invalid conceptions of others if they want to possess a CONTEXTUALLY valid, non secondhanded, view of anything. One only needs valid content in ones file folder, not omniscient or exaustive content.

62

Let me rephrase my original question:

 

Insofar as Dowdey referred to space and time in his presentation, and you did not deem it necessary to investigate the true nature of time or space from epistemological consideration at the time you posted his video, I merely ask does he disbelieve observations of space and time as experimentally measured by atomic clocks and the decay of muons.

63

Sl said:

“Insofar as Dowdey referred to space and time in his presentation, and you did not deem it necessary to investigate the true nature of time or space from epistemological consideration at the time you posted his video”

In fact, my epistemological knowledge of space and time is central to what promted me to check the special science premises here being discussed.

Im bot sure if he has specific criticism of Relativity concerning either of the types of experiments you mention. I know that I do.

64

Do you disbelieve in the experimental evidence collected in connection with one or both of special and general relativity or only disbelieve the “interpretation” of experimental results regarding one or both.

65

There are most likely no such things as black holes.

 

First, the idea originates in an extrapolation of known physics into an unknown context so it is not an ironclad deduction but just a speculation without hard evidence.  

 

Second, the idea actually postulates the real existence of a singularity, the point of infinite density at the center of a black hole.  There are philosophical objections to actual infinities.

 

Third, the idea contradicts other known principles of physics.  Within physics the theory of gravity and theory of quantum mechanics are not integrated together and they cannot both be true for the case of black holes.  For example the Pauli exclusion principle forbids two fermions to have the same quantum state but in a black hole singularity only one quantum state would be possible. 

 

Fourth, mathematical analysis of the physics of black holes has led to the exploration of thermodynamics of black holes.  If black holes are considered as having finite entropy then it turns out there cannot more entropy within its volume than can exist entirely upon its surface (the Bekenstein Bound).  As entropy or information can only exist in the form of mass or energy then this implies that there is an upper limit on the possible density of a finite quantity of mass and energy.

 

Extremely massive gravitational objects exist, such as at the center of our galaxy and others,  but they do not reach infinite density.  Extreme gravitational redshift would make any emissions very hard to detect, so there is that similarity to the ‘invisibility’ of a black hole.

66

Sl:

The interpretation of the experiments is where I differ.

67

Sl:

The interpretation of the experiments is where I differ.

 

Good.

 

 

Assume time “as measured” here is simply a relationship between actions or events occurring naturally (uninterrupted not interfered with) in a physical process, and a standard is chosen based on an arbitrarily chosen physical process.  The first swings of a pendulum, decays of atoms, orbits of a planet, the first vibration of a particular spring with a mass on its end, etc. each can be related to each other based on number or fraction of swings, decays, orbits, or vibrations and hence can be defined completely as a relationship between events or actions.

 

Is it safe to say that time “as measured” by atomic clocks and Muons, i.e. non-interfered with physical process from state to state, varies based on where the atomic clock or Muon are in a gravitational field, and also varies based on the relative velocity of the atomic clock or Muon, to some standard process (as discussed above) used to “measure” time.

68

Plasmatic

 

I am curious to hear your answer, I’ll try to be patient…  :slight_smile:

69

It is a fact that physical entities, like clocks, are affected by gravitational fields in such a manner as to cause a change in speed.

70

It is a fact that physical entities, like clocks, are affected by gravitational fields in such a manner as to cause a change in speed.

 

Um speed… it is a conspiracy of coincidence but it looks like you just said all things accelerate due to gravity… sorry I had to bring it up … I know you didn’t mean that because that would be irrelevant.  Its a little funny tho… :slight_smile:

 

As to the experiments re. clocks or observations of Muons and time “as measured” by them … when they are travelling at different speeds relative to another (the standard) physical process “measuring time”… do you accept those observations?

71

StrictlyLogical,

 

I ran across this article several years ago when I discovered this forum searching for information on “circular time theory”. Miss Rand is quoted in a few locations and the Mr. Miller considers himself an Objectivist ‘filosofer’ with 30 years experience. He primarily credits Aristotle for this particular topic.  It might provide some fodder for thought on the matter. The article is entitled: Time, Clocks and Causality.

72

“… I know you didn’t mean that because that would be irrelevant”

In fact I see it as the essential issue. Let me know what you think of the Miller argument above.

73

Weaver, its been a long time since I read the whole article. While refreshing myself on it, I noticed that Miller confuses similarity with sameness. We’ve talked about that issue before. Not certain how this effects the rest at present.

Edit: nevermind he clarifies that: “only by claiming omniscience could one claim that they were indeed the same in all respects.”

74

StrictlyLogical,

 

I ran across this article several years ago when I discovered this forum searching for information on “circular time theory”. Miss Rand is quoted in a few locations and the Mr. Miller considers himself an Objectivist ‘filosofer’ with 30 years experience. He primarily credits Aristotle for this particular topic.  It might provide some fodder for thought on the matter. The article is entitled: Time, Clocks and Causality.

 

Interesting… perhaps I will look at it in more detail later.  These fringe theories don’t strike me as particularly sophisticated.

 

What I have noticed, is that certain individuals who dispute relativity, end up with a concept of an absolute ether or some such filling all of space… I find it hard to distinguish in causal or consequential terms the difference between someone asserting existence of “absolute space”: a thing filling the universe, and someone asserting “space” itself is relational BUT there is this other thing called “ether” filling the universe…

75

Vick said:

“1. Inductive reasoning argues black holes exist…Black holes were originally conceived as a mathematical construct. Observations in astronomy and development of stellar theory have strengthened the notion of this construct”

A valid concept is a green light to induction. A valid concept black holes are not.

The inference of extreme mass density is an artifact of the gravity centric cosmology denying the orders of magnitude greater force of electromagnetism at work in the interstellar plasma so pervasive in the universe. ( 99.99% of the universe)

Edit: Also where is the predicted lensing surrounding the SMBH’s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

 

Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond yet again. I have already pissed off some plasma cosmologists and it may indeed become a new second hobby of mine.  A satellite measured or is measuring the gravitational well of the Earth with high precision, I cannot recall if the mission is done yet or if they are still compiling data from it.  Astronomers have it good in some ways but most of the time they have it pretty rough.  Keck and all other associated instruments combined can barely resolve the stars orbiting the SMBH at the center of galaxy through all the crap, let alone see the gravitational lensing from stars beyond the crap they must shine through on the other side.  The gas glob currently accreting into this central region will hopefully improve our knowledge based on observations.  The good news is, some new big scopes will be coming online in the next 10 years. 

 

The universe needs to have produced more of the light elements attributed to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis since the theoretical event of the Big Bang occurred.  There is a 50 percent discrepancy between what Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predicts and what we observe.  In the context of the Big Bang, metallicities observed are low to the point of being problematic.  This is both on a cosmic scale and when you consider the G, K, and M dwarf problems.  Rather than try to figure out multiple impossible paradox’s for another 40 years, how about trying to figure out how the universe can achieve mass densities high enough to produce the non metal elements on a macroscopic level?  The current list of possible constructs is not long.

 

Another strong argument for black holes is there is no currently known degeneracy pressure beyond that of Neutrons that can halt a star core collapse.  The good news is, neutron star observations  have come a long way in my lifetime.  Objects once thought to be 15-25 km in diameter with escape velocities of 100k km/sec - 150k km/sec have recently been updated and you do not hear about it much…

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0348%2B0432

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0023 ---- just as a point of reference I went with run 7 as the authors suggest it is the best run.

 

Neutron stars are far smaller in diameter than once thought.  Go play with escape velocities for these babies based on the full range of possible diameters.  Even if you assume the least favorable constraints possible for calculating escape velocity you end up with a rather astoundingly high escape velocity. I will not deprive you of the opportunity to astound yourself. (I always loved Rand’s affinity for that word)

 

Since there is no degeneracy pressure beyond that of Neutrons “on the books” to halt a massive star cores collapse and I am unwilling to subscribe to the concept of a textbook gravitational singularity (an infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinitely dense object that is infinitely warping space time) for very good reasons, I will search for Rambo.  Rambo’s are at the heart of my black holes, as of now all I know is Rambo’s are objects with an escape velocity exceeding that of the speed of light that are not infinitely dense or infinitely approaching infinite density.  There is a long way from the mass density needed for a black hole and infinity.  Implying an as of yet undiscovered final state of degeneracy and I am it’s huckleberry.

 

In preparation for gravitational wave observation data I am going to need something to look for… welcome to the fun little hell I have created for myself.  Using a collection of discrete methods I am going to attempt to come up with a theoretical mass density range for Rambo.  Then using some hacked PPN formalism (which is only good up until PPN3 since I do not have a supercomputer to run numerical relativity on) I will attempt to hack out some black hole inspiral failure scenarios for the full range of possible values for Big G (since I am working with an object of unknown mass density, this consideration may be irrelevant to consider initially but not to be forgotten later).  With a matrix of outputs from this steaming pile I must then come up with some gravitational waves to look for.  I have some other tricks in mind but I am keeping those on the down low for now.

 

I am intentionally skipping over making some individual replies in attempt to cover multiple duplicate inquiries more quickly.  There are also some comments I am still pondering on how to best respond to them.

76

Interesting… perhaps I will look at it in more detail later.  These fringe theories don’t strike me as particularly sophisticated.

 

What I have noticed, is that certain individuals who dispute relativity, end up with a concept of an absolute ether or some such filling all of space… I find it hard to distinguish in causal or consequential terms the difference between someone asserting existence of “absolute space”: a thing filling the universe, and someone asserting “space” itself is relational BUT there is this other thing called “ether” filling the universe…

I’m not sure what you are referring to as a fringe theory.

If it is circular time theory, the reference document was removed from the thread prior to my discovery of this forum.

It may have been Dr. Binswanger that mentioned Miss Rand referenced it in a conversation, and that he wished he had asked her more about it. It is a “secret” she took with her.

 

As to space, there is no universal Cartesian coordinate system. Both “space” in your first sense, and “ether” in the second  are treat as “things” as you aptly prefaced them with. How does this differ from taking two abstractions “space” and “time”, hyphenating them together into “space-time” and then treating them as if they can be “bent”, “dilated” etc?

77

Lol, in #55 I said :

“Plasma lem”, but meant “plasma limb”, as in solar limb.

78

If Observed lensing around galaxies is due to plasma… (untold trillions of tons extending light years) would that constitute discovery of the so called missing dark matter?

79

vickster:

 

 

Do black holes in their current theoretical form conserve all physical quantities other than “information” as such?

 

If so why was something theorised to exist in a particular way which violates conservation of physical quantities?  What permitted such theorization?

 

I am basing my own work and ideas on “rational universe” theory.  Here is a precise definition, it was only inferred to within my argument.

 

Rational Universe:  Is a perceivable universe fully understandable by a sapient being without requiring a sapient being to commit certain suicide in effort to gain further knowledge. By “fully understandable” I am referring only to all physical laws, forces, and properties that govern a perceivable universe.

 

As for the rest of your question, it is a bit of a mess, and arguably I am closer than anyone to figuring it out (knocks on wood “please do not be an irrational universe”).  I listed a great deal of information already in other responses.  I will just touch on that which I find noteworthy without retelling the entire story of mans accumulation of knowledge since the beginning.

 

Things are a bit slippery so please interpret my attempts at giving a fair response as sincere and not evasive.  I have created an argument and theory based on a theoretical construct.  When I was 12 years old I read a Brief History of Time and was unwilling to accept Hawkings take at that point.  Not enough observation and evidence had yet been collected to support his conclusions at that time.  His best guess was excellent.

 

Regarding the argument for black holes:  I cannot get you fully caught up… you need to read “A brief history of time”, “Black Hole War”, and a bunch of other stuff.  With that and a complete history of black hole theory under your belt, consider the following answer.

 

Assuming the following: There is a an unknown state of matter degeneracy, with an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light that is not infinite.

 

The first response to your first question is, Yes, otherwise black holes would have no mass.  As far as entropy, physical information, and radiation go, there are other standing theories, and while there remain unknowns, I am clearly planting my flag with Susskind in favor of information conservation.  The trick now is figuring it out, how does the universe do it… it does keep me awake at night and I have collected myself quite the gallery of haters…  There is a possibility that a few theories together yield the answer.  It is also possible that I may be bat shit crazy wrong but I inspire another person to fight the correct answer.

 

The answer to the second question is, theoretical physics involves making a best guesses at any given time within the confines of limited knowledge.  The theoretical aims to push the barrier with nothing really to loose except for ones own individual time spent.  Black Holes have been theorized as best they could progressively over time.  While black hole theory developed many unknowns remained.  Some models harbored potentially contradictory properties, this is what inspired Susskind to take on Hawking.  Everything modeled within a perceived reality IS a best guess.  “What permitted such theorization?”  Mankind’s desire to know the truth regarding reality even if it required making a best guess.

80

I know no way to transfer meaning from from the context “information” was formed in, to the context it is here being used, without denying its contextual roots. Unless one is simply recycling a word with an established connection to a specific set of referents and using it in a context completely unrelated and living with the confusion it creates. However, my read is, the adherents simply fail to apply a valid reduction and contextual analysis of “information” and accept a usage without knowledge of its origin and without guidance from a normative epistemology. The result is an attempt to resolve “paradoxes” ad hoc, caused simply by bad epistemology.

I realize you currently don’t agree and I’d be interested in any sources you think would convince me of the inference that information does not involve a mind to be informed.

 

It is all here if you dig around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

“Physical information” is referring to specifically the “quantum evolution operator” or “unitary evolution operator”.