## [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

stormryder wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:15 pm
...one could even make the case that the variation of the frequency (quantum metabolism?) of particles that make up a conscious being could change the experience of the passage of time for that being.
I seriously doubt it. While the being may be constructed of particles, there is absolutely not a skerrick of evidence to even hint that consciousness is in any way, shape or form, material. In fact, all the scientific evidence we have so far points to the contrary; dyed-in-the-wool materialists' assertions notwithstanding. One doesn't need to invoke such a case anyway. If you wish to alter the experience of time for a conscious entity, give it something boring to do.
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

think of a number from 1 to infinity type it down so you don't forget it. make it as long as you like open your Calculator and try this.
take your number and multiply by two `x 2`
=
`+8`
=
divide by two `/2`
=
minus your number `-x`
=

stormryder
Level 3
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:40 am

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

catweazel wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:21 am
While the being may be constructed of particles, there is absolutely not a skerrick of evidence to even hint that consciousness is in any way, shape or form, material.
I'm not saying that it is. I would, however, suggest that consciousness is affected by material.
LSD has a very profound and extreme affect upon consciousness in my experience. When you take that a step further and consider what we know about brain chemistry in the role of depression and other types of brain disorders there seems to be little question that material can effectively change consciousness.
Interestingly I know of a clinical psychologist that claims to be able to control his own depression through diet

Conscious was probably a poor term to use anyway. What I meant was more along the lines that the particles might affect our physiology so as to change our metabolism.

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

stormryder wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:37 pm
I would, however, suggest that consciousness is affected by material.
Whereas modern science says exactly the opposite.
stormryder wrote: LSD has a very profound and extreme affect upon consciousness in my experience.
Therein lies yet another problem. A strong magnet will have an effect on a television, as would a 10lb sledgehammer, but the signal isn't in the television.
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

Fred Barclay
Level 12
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:12 am
Location: Swimming

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:41 am
think of a number from 1 to infinity type it down so you don't forget it. make it as long as you like open your Calculator and try this.
take your number and multiply by two `x 2`
=
`+8`
=
divide by two `/2`
=
minus your number `-x`
=

... 4
But that's exactly what we'd expect. All this process does is reverse itself halfway through.
First you multiply by 2 and add 8, then divide by 2.
That has the same effect as just adding 4.

Then you subtract the original number from your new number (which is just the original number + 4). You get... 4.

(Sorry if this comes across condescending or anything like that. It is a cool trick for sure! Just not an unusua result...).

If you like weird number stuff, there's a really cool one that says 1.99999..... = 2:
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-valu ... l-to-2./1/

Cheers!
Fred

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:17 pm
Sorry if this comes across condescending or anything like that. It is a cool trick for sure! Just not an unusual result .
it doesn't bother me and didn't think of your post as condescending.

do you then believe that if time is relative, math and physics aren't ? the above post with the number 8 is just a round house equation, but it doesn't work with any other number or so i haven't tested all the numbers. why is number 8 special here? i'm no math person i got this trick from a math magician on TV back in the early 90's and i've tried many ways to bend this formula and make it work with other numbers but couldn't. can i think of an instance where 1+1=3 ?

does intelligence require me to "believe" that before the big bang there was no math and geometry ? that there was no x and y coordinates? and does that same intelligence require me to believe that the infinite universe came into existence into a realm that did not have a place prepared for it?

if we use math to solve the big bang would it look something like this: 8 (the big bang) x 0 (the thing that existed before the big bang) = 0 (that which now exists)

you can only have one constant: nothing or infinite, which one is it? i used the value zero but i'm not allowed to use it since nothing doesn't have a value, only for the discussion it has to be represented by something which is a paradox.

Flemur
Level 18
Posts: 8010
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Potemkin Village

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:17 pm
If you like weird number stuff, there's a really cool one that says 1.99999..... = 2:
1.999.... is another way to represent "2": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] if/when it is solved!
Your data and OS are backed up....right?

Fred Barclay
Level 12
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:12 am
Location: Swimming

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:35 am
do you then believe that if time is relative, math and physics aren't ?
Yes and no, maybe??
"Relative" doesn't mean "fluid" in this context. Experiments have shown that time is constant for any single reference frame -- that is, you won't magically age from 28-40 in the same time that someone else in your same reference frame (say a spacecraft) ages from 28-32. Everyone on a reference frame experiences time passing at the same rate.

It's only when you compare reference frames (say, the spacecraft and Earth) that time becomes "relative". Even then, relative just means it passes at a different rate depending on what you're using as a reference. There's a simple mathematical conversion from one time frame to the other: t_1 = gamma * t_0 (and gamma is just 1/sqrt(1 - (your_speed^2/light_speed^2))).

So even so -- yes, there are constants. Maybe measurements look a little different depending on your frame of reference, but there's no reason you can't convert your measurements between reference frames and find that they're all really equivalent. In fact, IIRC one of the main tenets of the special theory is that all measurements are equally valid regardless of reference frame.
the above post with the number 8 is just a round house equation, but it doesn't work with any other number or so i haven't tested all the numbers. why is number 8 special here?
8 really isn't special -- but using 8 and 4 is. You'd get the same result with 6 and 3, 10 and 5, 1000 and 500... the important thing is that you add twice as much as you want to get at the end.
can i think of an instance where 1+1=3 ?
Supposedly Bertrand Russel refused to accept that 1 + 1 always equals 2. I'm not sure how he showed there are cases where this is true -- I'm no mathematician!
does intelligence require me to "believe" that before the big bang there was no math and geometry ? that there was no x and y coordinates? and does that same intelligence require me to believe that the infinite universe came into existence into a realm that did not have a place prepared for it?
Well -- I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who thinks the Universe was designed, not an accident. But no matter your thoughts of the beginning, it doesn't change that all these things simply weren't needed (and mostly likely didn't exist). There was nothing physical. Without any physical thing, physical constraints like x and y coordinates are meaningless.
if we use math to solve the big bang would it look something like this: 8 (the big bang) x 0 (the thing that existed before the big bang) = 0 (that which now exists)
It's a little more complicated than that.

Generally speaking, the very beginning probably would be a space-time singularity. If the universe is expanding (which red shift tells us it is), then we just go backwards to assume that the start must have been something unimaginably tiny, much like a black hole in reverse.
In fact, there's no particular reason we couldn't model our universe as the inside of a black hole. That doesn't mean it actually is (although I suspect that our "finite yet unbounded" universe behaves very much like the inside of a black hole would, so maybe??).

Now this with three bits of caution (a) I'm not a cosmologists, (b) these are just models to explain observations, and (c) as such, they could very well be replaced by superior theories later. We can use math to "wind back the clock", so to speak, but of course there's still lots more to discover!

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

Pippin
Level 4
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:14 am
Location: NL/DE/TH

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

"Monkey see, monkey do is not equal to monkey know"
R. Distinti

The resistance to new ideas increases by the square of their importance.
Russell's Law

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:31 pm
There was nothing physical. Without any physical thing, physical constraints like x and y coordinates are meaningless.
right, there was nothing. a definition of nothing is, it remains the same when you add to it or take away from it. how then can we have something out of nothing if the "value" of nothing hasn't changed?

(Charles Seife)
A mathematical definition of the infinite is a set of "stuff" which you can
take away from and it's still the same size. if you think about nothingness,
you take away from it and it's still the same. So there's a lot of properties in common with nothing and infinity.
In fact part of the reason that nothing is so problematic is because when you're staring at nothing, you're looking down the face of infinity.

so we can't use "nothing" in this equation. and how weird is it that we believe the universe was sparked into being by a huge flash of light or bang or explosion. the universe could just as easily have been transferred into this reality through a tiny quantum tear. we then adapt all our math and science to give a birth time of 14 billion years when in fact it could be the universe is only 14 billion years old this time around. even so it couldn't have transferred into nothing if the value of nothing is not allowed to change

Fred Barclay
Level 12
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:12 am
Location: Swimming

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:05 pm

right, there was nothing. a definition of nothing is, it remains the same when you add to it or take away from it. how then can we have something out of nothing if the "value" of nothing hasn't changed?
But here's the thing -- you're using the definition of "nothing" as it pertains to after the beginning of the Universe. Of course, in our current reality, 0 x anything = 0. But that will only get you back so far (to the exact instant of the start of the Universe). You can't exactly speak of what existed before the Universe started because not even time existed. Without time, there was no "before the Universe". So saying there was nothing before the Universe is a nice simplification model, but it probably shouldn't be taken completely at face value.
and how weird is it that we believe the universe was sparked into being by a huge flash of light or bang or explosion. the universe could just as easily have been transferred into this reality through a tiny quantum tear.
Absolutely! No one knows the mechanics of what happened. All we know is that our universe is expanding in such a way that would indicate that it all came from a single point at some time back. (That's not the only indication -- things like cosmic background radiation are also a strong hint that this happened.) Why did it happen... well, that's not something science can answer. Was it God (my belief)? A rip in space-time from another universe that leaked through? A cycle of collapses and expansions? Are we just the inside of a black hole in another universe? Regardless of what exactly happened, math and science can only go back to the very beginning, no further. Else, you'd be asking to look back before time itself began -- an obvious paradox.

(That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Steven Hawking had figured out some way to peek behind the start. EDIT -- never mind, his idea of a "boundary theory" is that there is no bang. Just like a singularity can be thought of as constantly collapsing down to nothingness but never quite reaching it, he thought that perhaps there was no actual "bang". It just looks like that from our point of view.)
we then adapt all our math and science...
Not really. It's more like we build upon and refine our knowledge. "Adapting" our math, science, etc; would imply that we start with a preconceived notion and then twist math around until we can support what we're already determined to believe. That's not what's actually happening! Not to mention, it's terrible science!
when in fact it could be the universe is only 14 billion years old this time around...
But here you're assuming that time is some standard outside our universe, right? And that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Time is part of the fabric of our universe. Stuff doesn't get to be XYZ years old "this time around" because this time is all it's ever known! Even if our universe underwent some giant cosmic cycle of expansion and collapse, over and over again, time would reset each time. You couldn't talk of a time before because, well, that time simply doesn't exist in your (current) reality.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:35 pm
Time is part of the fabric of our universe.

There is a sound biological reasoning for that statement, and it lives in how we perceive the world in slices, and it is this perception to which we apply the concept of 'time'. In physics, there is absolutely no law that says time must run in the way we perceive it or label it.
Last edited by catweazel on Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:05 pm
and how weird is it that we believe the universe was sparked into being by a huge flash of light or bang or explosion.
There was no "BANG!" The 'bang' in "Big Bang" was coined as a pejorative. That there was an explosion or a bang is folkscience, old wive's tales, an idea perpetuated by dumbed down science in the media.

As for the weirdness, "nothing" is a very unstable state so the the production of "something" out of "nothing" is inevitable therefore it should not be a surprise that we find ourselves in something.

Oh, and if you really think about why you exist at all, the short answer is that we are the universe observing, experiencing and expressing its own creativity. We call that, Nature.
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

lsemmens
Level 10
Posts: 3130
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Rural South Australia

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

The obvious question is, "If our universe is constantly expanding, then, into what is it expanding?"

Maybe, we (i.e. our reality) have always been, and always will be. There is no beginning and no ending, only our perception thereof. If this is not so, then it begs the questions. How did it all begin? How will it eventually end? ergo Cause? God?
Fully mint Household

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:35 pm
Regardless of what exactly happened, math and science can only go back to the very beginning, no further. Else, you'd be asking to look back before time itself began -- an obvious paradox.
right, i guess math can calculate 14,000,000,000 but it can't go to 14,000,000 008 or more?. since we have relative time as they all say, why stop at the beginning? only because there is a constant, there is relativity so scientists should be able to go even double the "time" this universe existed.

what do you mean we can't go back further? scientists make educated guesses that seem to hold up more validity in their community and anyone caught disagreeing is a heretic.
catweazel wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:22 am
As for the weirdness, "nothing" is a very unstable state so the the production of "something" out of "nothing" is inevitable therefore it should not be a surprise that we find ourselves in something.
you're forgetting that "nothing" remains the same if you add to it or take away from it, so this means it is very stable. even you you added 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, big bangs into this "nothing" it would remain the same

you can not change the definition of nothing to suit your equation. nothing is nothing. it was always nothing and will always be nothing; period. it's not zero. zero is a value that can be used. it is null, which means that if you apply any force or pressure or math formula it will always cancel itself out leaving you with the non-value of "nothing"

so you see. before the beginning there was something

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:32 am
catweazel wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:22 am
As for the weirdness, "nothing" is a very unstable state so the the production of "something" out of "nothing" is inevitable therefore it should not be a surprise that we find ourselves in something.
you're forgetting that "nothing" remains the same if you add to it or take away from it, so this means it is very stable.
Oh dear. I'm bowing out. This discussion is obviously way above your pay grade.
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

Fred Barclay
Level 12
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:12 am
Location: Swimming

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

trytip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:32 am
what do you mean we can't go back further?
Because there is no further. Just like you can't measure something and tell me it's less than 0 meters long.
scientists make educated guesses that seem to hold up more validity in their community and anyone caught disagreeing is a heretic.
Of course there are overzealous scientists. There are also overzealous philosophers, skeptics, economists, politicians, chicken farmers, runners, hotdog-eating-contest attendees...
catweazel wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:22 am
As for the weirdness, "nothing" is a very unstable state so the the production of "something" out of "nothing" is inevitable therefore it should not be a surprise that we find ourselves in something.
That I disagree with. "Nothing" has no matter, no energy, no entropy*... I don't agree that nothingness is unstable.

*I assume. It's not as if we can actually measure the entropy and etc of nothingness -- anything measurable, by definition, couldn't be nothing.
trytip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:32 am
you're forgetting that "nothing" remains the same if you add to it or take away from it, so this means it is very stable.
How so? Nothing + something = something.

If you don't believe this, think of it this way. Nothing + something = something + nothing, right?
In that case, add nothing to a can of beans on your shelf. What are you left with? Still a can of beans with far too much sodium and not nearly enough flavour. "Nothing" more, and "nothing" less.
trytip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:32 am
so you see. before the beginning there was something
Ok, but before that something, what was there? And before that? And before that?

At some point you'll have to say that there is a limit. And a limit means, well, that there's nothing beyond. At least, nothing physical.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
- Albert Einstein

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:00 pm
trytip wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:32 am
you're forgetting that "nothing" remains the same if you add to it or take away from it, so this means it is very stable.
How so? Nothing + something = something.
nothing always remains the same when you add to it or take away from it. this is why it's called nothing. if you change it's name to something it's is only relative to your reality.

in my reality nothing + something = it never existed so you couldn't add anything, it doesn't exist so you can't add something and it will never exist so you can't see anything

catweazel
Level 19
Posts: 9895
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:44 pm
Location: Australian Antarctic Territory

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

Fred Barclay wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:00 pm
catweazel wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:22 am
As for the weirdness, "nothing" is a very unstable state so the the production of "something" out of "nothing" is inevitable therefore it should not be a surprise that we find ourselves in something.
That I disagree with. "Nothing" has no matter, no energy, no entropy*... I don't agree that nothingness is unstable.

*I assume. It's not as if we can actually measure the entropy and etc of nothingness -- anything measurable, by definition, couldn't be nothing.
It pays to know how to do your research in case greater minds than your own don't accord, then to know to check your presuppositions and seek clarifications, where appropriate, before playing dress-up physicist. There is the theological, romantical, faeries-at-bottom-of-the-garden idea of nothing, which, without doubt you are referring to, is not known to exist, and, by definition, cannot possibly exist; then there is the scientific nothing; the nothing of quantum field theory, the quantum electrodynamic vacuum state.
The team of scientists headed by Professor Alfred Leitenstorfer has now shown how to manipulate the electric vacuum field and thus generate deviations from the ground state of empty space which can only be understood in the context of the quantum theory of light.

With these results, the researchers from the field of ultrafast phenomena and photonics build on their earlier findings, published in October 2015 in the scientific journal Science, where they have demonstrated direct detection of signals from pure nothingness.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-quantum-v ... space.html

The "pure nothingness" referred to is the scientific nothingness.

The moment you apply a single label to your unscientific idea of nothing, it has become something, and that is so because the application of a label necessarily entails the existence of an attribute, which, by your very own definition, it cannot possibly possess. Helloooo? It follows then that you cannot coherently define what you mean by nothing so are doomed to forever dance around each other in never-ending illogical circles, like a pair of seals, each missing a flipper, trying to fight over a hapless sardine.

Neither of you is arguing from a scientific base, but from each of your own personal interpretations of 17th century old-wives tales, otherwise known as Newtonian or classical physics, which has been resoundingly discredited by modern science as nothing more than gross approximation at best, and nothing that even remotely approaches a description of reality. You seem to be trying to impress each other over who can commit the most egregious errors of rudimentary logic in two words or less or who can spout boundless unscientific piffle and incoherent poppycock better than the other.

Nothingness is the absence of physical particles.

Oddly enough, there are no particles.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

It follows then that nothing exists. BOOM! BOOM!
"There is, ultimately, only one truth -- cogito, ergo sum -- everything else is an assumption." - Me, my swansong.

trytip
Level 13
Posts: 4501
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:20 pm

### Re: [SOLVED] Hypothetical question about gravity

we're just having fun, we're not measuring "sticks" here all opinions, facts and guesses are welcome. i hope i don't come off as a pompous know it all, but i probably do. how dare we mere mortal humans tackle such a thing as nothing when we haven't even discussed infinite which is it's opposite.

if nothing doesn't have x and y coordinates, where do you put something? does "something" bring it's x and y with it, travels through a quantum tear from an unknown realm into another realm of non-existence and totally re-invents everything as it travels? BYOU (bring your own universe)

nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' Eddie Murphy
nothin' from somethin' also nothin'
somethin' from nothin' still nothin'
How so? Nothing + something = something.
to me is the same as 1 + 1 = 3

Schrodinger's cat is either or. it's either dead or alive. it's either something or nothing (nothing here is a loose interpretation of non-breathing death). it can't be both at the same time, even if our relative thinking wants to put it into human perspective. the laws that exist in that box is outside our definition.

for better terms one should say it's either something or it isn't. if you use "nothing" you're changing the equation into 1+1=3