Quantized redshift anomaly

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12301 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 this last comment of ours is to harsh. for me the idea of Philosophy is to open ones mind to other possibilites. and to understand that ideas, opinions, concepts can change and/or should be changed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">My remark should be read in context -- see the quoted remark from Tommy that I was commenting on. My remark should not be read as applying to all philosophy or philosophers, just to cases so over-analyzed that the big picture becomes buried.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you have concluded that deduction is a better way to come to an understanding of the ways of the universe. fair enough but your deduction did not lead you to the anaylysis of the Aurora Boriealis which what Hannes Alfven did,by induction, which then lead to Cosmic Plasmas. it is inductive reasoning and this form of reasoning lead to Cosmic Plasmas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That would be Exhibit A for my point. The products of inductive reasoning lead to educated guesswork, and nothing that follows from guesswork can be more certain than the initial guess, which is just one of innumerable possibilities.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i would think that a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning would be in order. with the degrees for each being a variable depending on the circumstances.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I agree that both are needed at times, but never in a mix. For deduction to be successful, one must arrive at the correct starting point for deduction by using induction. Once that step is over, induction has no legitimate role in a series of deductive syllogisms to determine if the starting point leads to a description of reality. Induction following the starting point would corrupt the process.

Under the rules of scientific method, the problem with induction is the difficulty in using the necessary controls to prevent conclusions reached from being simply the biases of the scientist.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that is what Philosophy is all about to me. keeping an open mind and investigating other ideas but with a critical attitude.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Philosophy opens a universe of possibilities, and science (physics in our case) works hard to narrow down that "universe" to just those few ideas that have counterparts in reality. If one stays at the philosophical level, that can be maddening to realists because it continues to entertain so many ideas that have already been ruled out by reasoning, observation, or experiment.

Progress in understanding nature depends on narrowing that list of possibilities. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12559 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 this last comment of ours is to harsh. for me the idea of Philosophy is to open ones mind to other possibilites. and to understand that ideas, opinions, concepts can change and/or should be changed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">My remark should be read in context -- see the quoted remark from Tommy that I was commenting on. My remark should not be read as applying to all philosophy or philosophers, just to cases so over-analyzed that the big picture becomes buried.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you have concluded that deduction is a better way to come to an understanding of the ways of the universe. fair enough but your deduction did not lead you to the anaylysis of the Aurora Boriealis which what Hannes Alfven did,by induction, which then lead to Cosmic Plasmas. it is inductive reasoning and this form of reasoning lead to Cosmic Plasmas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That would be Exhibit A for my point. The products of inductive reasoning lead to educated guesswork, and nothing that follows from guesswork can be more certain than the initial guess, which is just one of innumerable possibilities.

the thing is Tom is that you also based on guess work. you can't prove without a doubt that your ideas are any more concrete, (at least not yet) and in actual fact there is more and more evidence that Cosmic Plasmas are real and have been proven. and so far from what i understand it is not just a possibility that Cosmic Plasmas exist, it is a fact.

lets say that you are right that the inductive reason is not the way to explain the Aurora then may i suggest that you look at the Aurora and explain it in your own terms.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i would think that a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning would be in order. with the degrees for each being a variable depending on the circumstances.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I agree that both are needed at times, but never in a mix. For deduction to be successful, one must arrive at the correct starting point for deduction by using induction. Once that step is over, induction has no legitimate role in a series of deductive syllogisms to determine if the starting point leads to a description of reality. Induction following the starting point would corrupt the process.

and yet if we look at deduction and induction as an equation one must equal the other. i should be able to go from the specific to the general and i must be able to go from the general to the specific.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Under the rules of scientific method, the problem with induction is the difficulty in using the necessary controls to prevent conclusions reached from being simply the biases of the scientist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

but if the scientist is able to not have any biases(see what you find regardless of preconcieved notions and have the flexibity to question any preconcieved notions) then induction is valid. your argument i based on emotion and stagnet thought with no flexibility. but this where a few scientist see past this, example Hannes Alfven differs and yourself.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that is what Philosophy is all about to me. keeping an open mind and investigating other ideas but with a critical attitude.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Philosophy opens a universe of possibilities, and science (physics in our case) works hard to narrow down that "universe" to just those few ideas that have counterparts in reality. If one stays at the philosophical level, that can be maddening to realists because it continues to entertain so many ideas that have already been ruled out by reasoning, observation, or experiment.

Progress in understanding nature depends on narrowing that list of possibilities. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

true and fair enough, however it is the Philosophy that gives the perspective to investigate this or that avenue in the first place. and realists can be wrong for many reasons. for what they thought was real needs to be changed. (Newton,Einstein i'm sure there are many more who thought they were realist but in time it was found they were not completely right) is that not from where your theory was galvanized from? the idea that earlier "realist" were wrong and now contemperary realists have a better understanding based on their Philosophy. it is the completness of the theory which makes one theory more "real" than others, it must explain, ultimately ALL things and THAT is extremely complex and difficult to do, to say the least.the theory must include ALL known knowledge that is relevant and bring together this knowledge as a whole, and to see its truth, to produce a complete and accurate picture of the whole and that can include the investigation of what seems unrealated ologies.

in conclusion, it is the Philosopher(advanced) who has the ability to draw ALL disciplines of Natural investigation into a unified whole.not a philosopher in a specific ology. this is because he/she has not the time or ability to absorb,comprehend and sort though all this information and come to a Reasonable conclusion. based on the realists findings.

that would take quite the mind!! you can find this same basic concept in a book (i thought this before i read a book by Gordon R. Dickson "CHILDE CYCLE" "The Final Encyclopedia") although his was a computer which gathered all information not Human.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12307 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 the thing is Tom is that you also based on guess work.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That just isn't so. Have you read chapter one in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, the basis for the Meta Model? Where do you see any guesswork there, especially in the initial steps? It's all deductive, the opposite of inductive guesswork.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you can't prove without a doubt that your ideas are any more concrete<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">"Proof" is something that applies to theorems in math. We don't "prove" things in physics. But good models must (1) be logical, (2) add insight and understanding, (3) be consistent with all relevant observations and experiments, and (4) make falsification predictions. While the five major cosmologies can claim they pass #1, only MM can claim major success with the other three. PC in particular adds almost no insight (#2) into the origin of the universe because it has adopted the worst feature of BB, expansion from an origin. It passes many observational tests (#3), but fails a few, requiring ad hoc helper hypotheses to bail it out. And I've not seen a falsification test (#4) proposed for it (or for BB either, for that matter).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">from what i understand it is not just a possibility that Cosmic Plasmas exist, it is a fact.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No, it's a theory. But suppose we accepted for the sake of argument that the intergalactic medium is a plasma. That still leaves us understanding almost nothing about the origin and evolution of the universe. So it is almost "useless" information.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if we look at deduction and induction as an equation one must equal the other. i should be able to go from the specific to the general and i must be able to go from the general to the specific.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No way. Let's look at a specific example. Suppose I start in Peoria and follow road signs to Washington, DC. At each turn or fork, the signs tell me which choice to make. That's deduction. Eventually, it will get me there.

Now I'm in Washington, and I want to find my way back home. I find no signs to Peoria, so my best guess is to look for road signs saying "to Washington" like the ones I followed to get here, and then go in the opposite direction. That's induction. I could end up anywhere.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but if the scientist is able to not have any biases ... then induction is valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It is a precept of scientific method (SM) that all scientists always have biases. (If they didn't, they probably wouldn't find the problem interesting.) SM requires controls against those biases. Without controls, all experiments tend to confirm expectations because we can normally find rationalizations to keep any outcome consistent with our beliefs.

Testing without controls is almost meaningless.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">realists can be wrong for many reasons. for what they thought was real needs to be changed. (Newton, Einstein i'm sure there are many more who thought they were realist but in time it was found they were not completely right)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">These men achieved what they did by narrowing all the possibilities to just a few, and those few were much, much better than any choices that existed before. That is how progress is made, as each brilliant mind fills in a new piece of the puzzle.

To me, that's more useful here and now than examining pieces of many puzzles for which we have no clue if they belong to our puzzle at all, or where they might fit in. But I do agree that someday, someone might find a place for a few of those other puzzle pieces. So for those of us with the time and inclination, looking at other puzzle pieces (philosophies) may turn out to have value in the long run. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #13146 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Philosophers drive themselves ... and everyone else ... crazy. Non-mathematical, classical physics is the way back from this madness. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hi Tom; I got an answer for you, wrote it this morning but darn, the computer deleted it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These men achieved what they did by narrowing all the possibilities to just a few, and those few were much, much better than any choices that existed before. That is how progress is made, as each brilliant mind fills in a new piece of the puzzle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you sure about this? I thought Einstein once said that his ideas do not come from the rational mind. And I always read about some scientist woke up with a dream, or someone gave him a tip, or whatever, "It just came to me." Can you tell me a great idea that was actually figured out?

quote:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the elysium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way...

Philosophers drive themselves ... and everyone else ... crazy. Non-mathematical, classical physics is the way back from this madness. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tsk Tsk Tom, you know better than this. Remember you said this is a place anyone can feel safe in. Something like that above is what Sarfatti would say. Good thing I am not a professional philosopher, that would hurt my feelings. Whitehead said that philosophy must not be partial to any domain, but must ge able to accomodate all of them. I can find the quote if you want. I am a professional General Systemist if you gotta know. Not that I get paid. General Systems is about finding those principles of a system and then applying these generalizations to other fields of science. We also do this so as to reduce duplication of effort. At the fundamental level, a system involves a shift in perspective from the parts to the relationships. Sorta like shifting the focus of your eyes from the black and white marks on this page to the meaning of the words that they make up. Classical science is entity based, systemics is simply saying that it is time to look at what the entities are doing to eachother. "We must think in new terms of interaction..." Bertalanffy said.

To help me in this battle of the scientist and the philosopher, I have redefined them, using the principles of science, so that they form a complementary whole much like a gestalt whole. Here is how I did this -- Let us say that science is the study of the particular. A natural limit to this has been placed by the verification principle, so that it can be said that science is the study of that which can be tested. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the study of general principles, and does not have this same limitation. So we have the complementary of science is the study of the particular, philosophy is the study of the general.

Now, let me give you an example. The phythagorean Theorem. A^+B^=C^ is a general statement we know is true for all right triangles. This is philosophy. BUT it cannot be proved in this form. SO, to make it scientific we substitute 3^+4^=5^ and we can find many ways to "prove" this. BUT 3^+4^=5^ is not general anymore! It is a special case, and only that. So you see, in my view anyway, the philosopher cannot be specific and the scientist cannot be general. Not that they don't try...

And that is what is driving you mad. A real philsopher cannot, by definition, be particular. And you, a real scientist can only deal with particulars. A real philosopher can write an entire book that would seem meaningless to you. But meaningless to you does not also mean meaningless to everyone. It especialy does not mean meaningless end of story.

So I asked, being philosophical, "Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the elysium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way..."

Boy, all I did is ask a few questions, what's wrong with that? Besides, no one knows what light is, I got a right as much as anyone to figure it out myself. Standing back outside the box, who says that light travels through space? Maybe it is traveling through the asylium and popping up whenever something gets in its way. Isn't this what those engineers are trying to do with warp drive and wormholes? They don't picture themselves moving through space, they go INSIDE, and pop up somewhere else. So maybe light is already doing that? And everything we measure about light, thanks a whole lot for the summary, is actually our measurement of the light's interactions on the outside, in our space.

As far as deduction/induction, as a systemist I'd say it is like up/down. At any rate, as a system they form a complementary. Of course each has it's place and role and usefulness. Question, when Tycho Brahe plotted the orbits, and Galileo took that data and created a hew paradigm, did they use induction or deduction?

The more I think about it, the more I lke my idea, our idea. The asylium isn't a medium per se, the asylium is where all the action is. Oh here I go again, the asylium "is" light...Maybe.

PS. Peter Gariaev at the Russiah Academy of Sciences, has this notion of "phantom DNA", He uses a laser to detect the holographic Light fields of a DNA particle, and translates this to RF. It shows up on a screen as a pattern. When they remove the sample, and recalibrate the chamber, they are able to see a clear pattern from the DNA. They attibute this to the ZPE. Don't know yet, if this is true. But if it is...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12310 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

Tom and i have read some of your CD(despite the problems i have had with it and i again thank Larry for his pa***ts( i'll be darned if i can the proper spelling, its dam frustrating i like to be right in my spelling) in your book though, remember i had a problem with your view of two particles. in that you had suggested that if there is movement of these particles relative to each other that you would not be able to tell. but my arguement to this perspective is that if one particle moved non-parallel to the other, that you could indeed see that one particle has moved relative to the other. if one were to move relatively speaking, behind or above, below the other. we may not be able to measure(mathematicly) but we now that there was movement, simply because of position.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you can't prove without a doubt that your ideas are any more concrete<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">"Proof" is something that applies to theorems in math. We don't "prove" things in physics. But good models must (1) be logical, (2) add insight and understanding, (3) be consistent with all relevant observations and experiments, and (4) make falsification predictions. While the five major cosmologies can claim they pass #1, only MM can claim major success with the other three. PC in particular adds almost no insight (#2) into the origin of the universe because it has adopted the worst feature of BB, expansion from an origin. It passes many observational tests (#3), but fails a few, requiring ad hoc helper hypotheses to bail it out. And I've not seen a falsification test (#4) proposed for it (or for BB either, for that matter).

Tom

don't get me wrong now, no quams with your perspectives objectives to BB but you have no basis for dismissing PC(Plasmic Cosmics?) otherwise what does PC mean. (please for those who chose to to use acronyms, at least explain them in the begining it helps to clairify your thoughts).

Tom, i have to say this, there are those within the Cosmic Plasma science, that DO NOT BELIEVE in BB.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">from what i understand it is not just a possibility that Cosmic Plasmas exist, it is a fact.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No, it's a theory. But suppose we accepted for the sake of argument that the intergalactic medium is a plasma. That still leaves us understanding almost nothing about the origin and evolution of the universe. So it is almost "useless" information.

only because your not willing to LOOK INTO Cosmic Plamas are you? don't you see that in a way you've become like the mainstream physics that you adhor?

Tom

we can't think that in our life time we can know it all! to do that is an illusion. we do the best we can with what we know my friend. to think that at this time, anyone has it ALL figured out, is not true, however what we can do and as many others are doing, we(humanity) are trying to find are way, without the suppression of ideas and that is why we are here Tom.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if we look at deduction and induction as an equation one must equal the other. i should be able to go from the specific to the general and i must be able to go from the general to the specific.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No way. Let's look at a specific example. Suppose I start in Peoria and follow road signs to Washington, DC. At each turn or fork, the signs tell me which choice to make. That's deduction. Eventually, it will get me there.

and yet if i wanted to leave Washington, DC could i not follow the paths that lead me there? if not i find this un-reasonable.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but if the scientist is able to not have any biases ... then induction is valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It is a precept of scientific method (SM) that all scientists always have biases. (If they didn't, they probably wouldn't find the problem interesting.) SM requires controls against those biases. Without controls, all experiments tend to confirm expectations because we can normally find rationalizations to keep any outcome consistent with our beliefs.

i disagree here. there will be a time when maturity of awarness becomes conscience. when the realization that "I COULD BE WRONG" is a real possibility. and therefore biases become a perspective of the past.

Testing without controls is almost meaningless.

true

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">realists can be wrong for many reasons. for what they thought was real needs to be changed. (Newton, Einstein i'm sure there are many more who thought they were realist but in time it was found they were not completely right)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">These men achieved what they did by narrowing all the possibilities to just a few, and those few were much, much better than any choices that existed before. That is how progress is made, as each brilliant mind fills in a new piece of the puzzle.

true enough. but they are also ignorant and in some cases choose to ignor other findings. your arguement that LR is better than GR is an example.

To me, that's more useful here and now than examining pieces of many puzzles for which we have no clue if they belong to our puzzle at all, or where they might fit in. But I do agree that someday, someone might find a place for a few of those other puzzle pieces. So for those of us with the time and inclination, looking at other puzzle pieces (philosophies) may turn out to have value in the long run. -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

ALWAYS TOM ALWAYS,to your last comment, never think, that i think your efforts are for nothing. if you think this, that is a misconception of my attitude. i bought your CD to find out, in more detail what you are on about! to understand!!

and as a Philosopher i owe it to me and too you, a full consideration of your thoughts, no more, no less. and this i shall do!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12311 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Philosophers drive themselves ... and everyone else ... crazy. Non-mathematical, classical physics is the way back from this madness. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hi Tom; I got an answer for you, wrote it this morning but darn, the computer deleted it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These men achieved what they did by narrowing all the possibilities to just a few, and those few were much, much better than any choices that existed before. That is how progress is made, as each brilliant mind fills in a new piece of the puzzle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you sure about this? I thought Einstein once said that his ideas do not come from the rational mind. And I always read about some scientist woke up with a dream, or someone gave him a tip, or whatever, "It just came to me." Can you tell me a great idea that was actually figured out?

not all figuring it out comes in a dream. experiments are done as well. and not all dreams are correct.

quote:

Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the elysium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way...

that is like saying there is no sound if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it. of course the animals hear it. and if no animals botony feels it.

this arguement is old and illogical.

Philosophers drive themselves ... and everyone else ... crazy. Non-mathematical, classical physics is the way back from this madness. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tsk Tsk Tom, you know better than this. Remember you said this is a place anyone can feel safe in. Something like that above is what Sarfatti would say. Good thing I am not a professional philosopher, that would hurt my feelings. Whitehead said that philosophy must not be partial to any domain, but must ge able to accomodate all of them. I can find the quote if you want. I am a professional General Systemist if you gotta know. Not that I get paid. General Systems is about finding those principles of a system and then applying these generalizations to other fields of science. We also do this so as to reduce duplication of effort. At the fundamental level, a system involves a shift in perspective from the parts to the relationships. Sorta like shifting the focus of your eyes from the black and white marks on this page to the meaning of the words that they make up. Classical science is entity based, systemics is simply saying that it is time to look at what the entities are doing to eachother. "We must think in new terms of interaction..." Bertalanffy said.

To help me in this battle of the scientist and the philosopher, I have redefined them, using the principles of science, so that they form a complementary whole much like a gestalt whole. Here is how I did this -- Let us say that science is the study of the particular. A natural limit to this has been placed by the verification principle, so that it can be said that science is the study of that which can be tested. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the study of general principles, and does not have this same limitation. So we have the complementary of science is the study of the particular, philosophy is the study of the general.

philosophy is not restricted to the general. read Kant.

Now, let me give you an example. The phythagorean Theorem. A^+B^=C^ is a general statement we know is true for all right triangles. This is philosophy. BUT it cannot be proved in this form. SO, to make it scientific we substitute 3^+4^=5^ and we can find many ways to "prove" this. BUT 3^+4^=5^ is not general anymore! It is a special case, and only that. So you see, in my view anyway, the philosopher cannot be specific and the scientist cannot be general. Not that they don't try...

nonsense, Phythagorean Theorem is not a philosophy. it is about relationships. and as you know in geometry, proofs are required.

And that is what is driving you mad. A real philsopher cannot, by definition, be particular. And you, a real scientist can only deal with particulars. A real philosopher can write an entire book that would seem meaningless to you. But meaningless to you does not also mean meaningless to everyone. It especialy does not mean meaningless end of story.

So I asked, being philosophical, "Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the elysium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way..."

of course, you confuse that the reality of things is based on Human existence, and that is a fallacy. think about it.

Boy, all I did is ask a few questions, what's wrong with that? Besides, no one knows what light is, I got a right as much as anyone to figure it out myself. Standing back outside the box, who says that light travels through space? Maybe it is traveling through the asylium and popping up whenever something gets in its way. Isn't this what those engineers are trying to do with warp drive and wormholes? They don't picture themselves moving through space, they go INSIDE, and pop up somewhere else. So maybe light is already doing that? And everything we measure about light, thanks a whole lot for the summary, is actually our measurement of the light's interactions on the outside, in our space.

and yet light comes from a specific place-object.

As far as deduction/induction, as a systemist I'd say it is like up/down. At any rate, as a system they form a complementary. Of course each has it's place and role and usefulness. Question, when Tycho Brahe plotted the orbits, and Galileo took that data and created a hew paradigm, did they use induction or deduction?

The more I think about it, the more I lke my idea, our idea. The asylium isn't a medium per se, the asylium is where all the action is. Oh here I go again, the asylium "is" light...Maybe.

PS. Peter Gariaev at the Russiah Academy of Sciences, has this notion of "phantom DNA", He uses a laser to detect the holographic Light fields of a DNA particle, and translates this to RF. It shows up on a screen as a pattern. When they remove the sample, and recalibrate the chamber, they are able to see a clear pattern from the DNA. They attibute this to the ZPE. Don't know yet, if this is true. But if it is...

obviously this is not zero point energy. for a point to have no energy the pattern would not show, strictly speaking.

i would think that strictly speaking, Zero means Zero(if not define further your concept of Zero) you should know better.

a point is massless

therefore of course has no energy.

Tommy

as well in your reference to language and its restrictions. this is nonsense. language evolves, grows with time , and slowly defines better what we are trying to get across. think about it from Sanskrit to now you are trying to tell me language does not change.

we create new words, phrases etc. to express thoughts.

if your arguement was true then the dictionary would be a stagnant book of definitions it is not.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.324 seconds