What is "miraculous"?

rousejohnny
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 2 months ago #11658 by rousejohnny

Replied by rousejohnny on topic Reply from Johnny Rouse

<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 rousejohnny
 So, the neutrino does not have mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Waves are confined to the wave speed of the medium they travel in. Particles can have any speed. To me, it appear certain that neutrinos are not particles because their speeds appear to be confined to a narrow window near the speed of light.

As for having "mass", that is a trickier question. Even waves have energy and momentum, and therefore act as if they have mass. (If you doubt it, try surfing sometime.) However, it is impossible to define mass for a wave because they have may have virtually unlimited extent. So we can only measure how massive an arbitrary portion of a wave appears to be when it smacks a particle. That is the kind of iffy "mass" that the non-replicated experiments have so far shown for neutrinos. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So the neutrino is just a particular "wiggle" of space/time or elysium that propagates at nearly the speed of light (not quite). So at some great distance a Supernovas neutrinos would not reach first as the light would catch up. Is the neutrino red shifted, and if so is it still a neutrino?

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 2 months ago #11603 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 rousejohnny
 So the neutrino is just a particular "wiggle" of space/time or elysium that propagates at nearly the speed of light (not quite). So at some great distance a Supernovas neutrinos would not reach first as the light would catch up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No, IMO the neutrino is a pure wave traveling at the speed of light.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is the neutrino red shifted, and if so is it still a neutrino?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">We can barely detect neutrinos. Measuring a wavelength is beyond current technology. -|Tom|-

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

Skarp
Offline
Premium Member

20 years 2 months ago #11604 by Skarp

Replied by Skarp on topic Reply from jim jim

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">in the imagination only<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This puts nothing squarely in the universe by your account. Unless you consider your imagination to be Non-Existent, and I would have a hard time buying that.

One must accept that a definition of nothing on the visceral level is hopelessly flawed. It can't be explained without comprehension of it's existence, and that explanation must be incomplete for obvious reasons. Hence if the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be an incomplete definition of it. Nothing cannot be examined witout form. It is the shape of the form that determines the quality of it's existence.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the next question (could nothing be outside the Universe)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The answer must be yes because thats all there is from an Existent, and Non-Existent point of view. Keep in mind this is only true if we derive a universe from nothing. You can't escape the universe (Existence) and say - Looky here! ... That's what I'm talkin bout! No proof is possible on any level but for the conceptual one.

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

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 2 months ago #11899 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

no actually it puts it squarely in your head and nowhere else,there are countless times in all forms of thought when what is in one's imagination is wrong this above statement of yours is no exception.
____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One must accept that a definition of nothing on the visceral level is hopelessly flawed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

the definition of nothing>NO space,time,dimension is NOT based on "feelings" or "intuition". it is based on reason and then follows the logic,the opposite of nothing is substance(or something if you like)either way it is the opposite.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> It can't be explained without comprehension of it's existence<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

actually we can comprehened it's existence.we can do this in the practical sense and in the theoretical sense(absolute sense)

_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Hence if the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be an incomplete definition of it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">.

obviously the universe did not come from nothing, for the universe is the complete and absolute opposite to nothing.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Nothing cannot be examined witout form. It is the shape of the form that determines the quality of it's existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

we can however examine nothing to see if it has form.it has mathematical form but NO physical form,NO space,time,dimension.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the next question (could nothing be outside the Universe)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The answer must be yes because thats all there is from an Existent, and Non-Existent point of view. Keep in mind this is only true if we derive a universe from nothing. You can't escape the universe (Existence) and say - Looky here! ... That's what I'm talkin bout! No proof is possible on any level but for the conceptual one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

and yet the conceptual can be wrong,then what? how many concepts have been wrong because when applied to reality they just don't fit.

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

Skarp
Offline
Premium Member

20 years 2 months ago #11606 by Skarp

Replied by Skarp on topic Reply from jim jim

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">no actually it puts it squarely in your head and nowhere else<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Yep - and that head is in the universe.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there are countless times in all forms of thought when what is in one's imagination is wrong this above statement of yours is no exception.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yep - but there is no question about the Existence of the thought in ones imagination.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">we can however examine nothing to see if it has form.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No - You can only examine a form of nothing. Form is a requirement to Existence.

If you had a box of nothing - The most you could garner from it is box, which is the form of it. This is the same as saying (The Reality Of Non-Existence). You have that which is real (form) and that which it is composed of (Non-Existence).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the definition of nothing>NO space,time,dimension <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No - The definition would require form, which is what you used in your definition. Spacetime is a form of nothing, and no form is possible in the infinite sense of dimension. Therefore no form of nothing can be complete as a definition of nothing (their dimensions must be finite). Nothing .... in the absolute sense is undefinable without form, and a form of nothing is just what the doctor ordered for spacetime. To say that absolute nothing is no space, time, or dimension is to remove that which makes absolute nothing definable, with the coveat that a definition of nothing must be incomplete.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and yet the conceptual can be wrong,then what? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The concept of one nothing isn't wrong - Then what?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how many concepts have been wrong because when applied to reality they just don't fit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
All of reality is a concept - It would seem your take is that all of reality is a purely physical manifestation. When you stub your bare toe on a chair leg (you call it physical). I call it conceptual. We can both agree on the results Ouch!, but apparently not how this happens.

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

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 2 months ago #11659 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Skarp
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">no actually it puts it squarely in your head and nowhere else<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yep - and that head is in the universe<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">.

SO?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there are countless times in all forms of thought when what is in one's imagination is wrong this above statement of yours is no exception.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yep - but there is no question about the Existence of the thought in ones imagination.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

what about before OUR existence,there is no thought,just substance!!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">we can however examine nothing to see if it has form.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No - You can only examine a form of nothing. Form is a requirement to Existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

nothing has NO existence!!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you had a box of nothing - The most you could garner from it is box, which is the form of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

box of what form exactly?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the definition of nothing>NO space,time,dimension <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No - The definition would require form, which is what you used in your definition<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">.

that is it's form,none!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Spacetime is a form of nothing, and no form is possible in the infinite sense of dimension.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

why not?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore no form of nothing can be complete as a definition of nothing (their dimensions must be finite). Nothing .... in the absolute sense is undefinable without form, and a form of nothing is just what the doctor ordered for spacetime.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

why has the doctor ordered nothing for spacetime?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To say that absolute nothing is no space, time, or dimension is to remove that which makes absolute nothing definable, with the coveat that a definition of nothing must be incomplete.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

then what is the absolute opposite of substance?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and yet the conceptual can be wrong,then what? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The concept of one nothing isn't wrong - Then what?

sure it is there is NO one nothing!!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how many concepts have been wrong because when applied to reality they just don't fit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
All of reality is a concept - It would seem your take is that all of reality is a purely physical manifestation. When you stub your bare toe on a chair leg (you call it physical). I call it conceptual. We can both agree on the results Ouch!, but apparently not how this happens.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

what if your blind and def?

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

Time to create page: 0.267 seconds