spaces in our universe that have nothing
— christian2017

I believe those places are were holiness resides. Not a being, not a Person, but abstract holiness.

"Impermanence, called anicca or anitya (Sanskrit) appears extensively in the Pali Canon as one of the essential doctrines of Buddhism" Wiki

Impermanence implies something from nothing.

"The Theravada school teaches that there is no universal personal god. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman or the Abrahamic God." Wiki — Gregory

back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at.

Can matter exist without movement/heat?
— christian2017

No. It everything is dependent on motion and motion on them, but motion is the prime mover. — Gregory

If matter matter requires motion and all matter involves gravitational pull (Newtonian as well as Einstein believed this), wouldn't that imply there was always motion, thus eternal motion going back forever? Or did i misunderstand you and matter or small particles did not always exist?

Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election.
— christian2017

Plato said learning geometry and would have said watching Snow White are activities that help the society. Platonic stuff

Matter is defined by degrees of solidity. Nothingness must be the softest "thing" possible (although it's closer to an idea than a substance. Sorry Descartes). I think science can answer the HOW but not the what or the why. The how can be explained by a non-existing clock. It clicks, the first second thus exist, and then the second, ect. Suddenly a whole clock exists and it rebirths itself every hour. It didn't come from nothing as far as science is concerned. It just is a brute fact. Nothingness is necessary (how could there not be nothing?) but not brute. It's too soft for that :) — Gregory

I believe nothing exists as in a small vacuum as in the phrase "light travels best in a vacuum".

I believe there are spaces in our universe that have nothing (vacuum), or atleast that is what my current understanding is.

That's where the West in the person of Hegel countered Buddha and said "you can't expect people to do what you do. They will get bored. I say let them watch TV". And the modern world began — Gregory

Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election.

Only activity is real. Potential is as nothing as evil it. It only something and good when acutal. Before matter there is no movement and vice verse. You, Christisn, are assuming an infinity of intermediate first motions — Gregory

You didn't tag me so i didn't see the post.

What do you mean by activity? Basically what i'm saying is can electron, proton or whatever subatomic particle that existed in the beginning, how can it exist without motion (because you said there was no motion). At this point in time i believe micro collisions or movement eternally existed going back forever.
An Proton for example as far as i know is a wave of smaller particles moving back and forth. Can matter exist without movement/heat?

The only way you can explain (at this point in the conversation) is a spiritual/religious solution which is what you did with the follow up reply. As you've probably guessed, personally i have no problem with that.

I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist

as i told another person on another post, the phrase is something i got from another forum topic. Basically the whole question earlier that you answered for me about the moving galaxies was the basic premise. Can two galaxies have ever occupied the same absolute points in space? You answered that question and i would like to thank you.

i think its possible that the idea of an individual self could be an illusion and instead we could all be a collective entity — Philosophical Script

its actually hard for me even as having my chosen religion to completely reject the concept of collective consceeeence or collective soul. It just is so intuitive that its hard to completely put away. A certain holy book says "the mountains praise him.....". Humans are a subset of the universe and i would argue anything that has feeling is a subset of the whole universe and the whole universe is one living object/entity/creature.

If there is no god (and i acknowledge that possibility) then all of history is interpreted by flawed humans and flawed perspectives very often create even more or even worse flawed perspectives.
— christian2017

History is an interesting case. Historians are supposed to look at primary sources such as diaries, photos and archaeology etc to draw conclusions.

We are expected to look at the evidence ourselves and decide upon it's validity. My beliefs about history are personal beliefs based on the persuasiveness of the evidence.

However, there are always conspiracy theorists and alternative historians to challenge majority beliefs. — Andrew4Handel

I agree.

Can a galaxy that is traveling through space at some point in time occupy the same space that another galaxy (there are many galaxies) used to occupy? I'm not saying i know the answer to this but i was wondering what your answer was?
— christian2017
Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.

I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist

Ok great! I agree with that.

Have you ever seen the youtube video "10 dimensions explained"?

Absolute points in space? Why are you asking that? Look it up on google or if you can wait an hour or two i'll come back from something i'm doing, i'll explain what i meant by that. brb.

aletheist actually confirmed my main issue. He agrees at least as far as i can tell that there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.
— christian2017
No, I do not agree with you. Here again is what I said.
What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement.
— aletheist
Points in space and instants in time are our creations. They do not exist apart from our designation of them; i.e., they are not real, which is what I take you to mean by "absolute" unless you clarify otherwise. — aletheist

thats fair. you don't agree. Can a galaxy that is traveling through space at some point in time occupy the same space that another galaxy (there are many galaxies) used to occupy? I'm not saying i know the answer to this but i was wondering what your answer was?

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force
— christian2017

There is no "rest" before the first motion. There is nothing. Everything is a stream or flow from a single "point" — Gregory

If no particles are moving, how is that not rest? Actually now that i think about it can matter even exist in the first place if there is no movement? I'm not sure you can say there wasn't always heat/movement.

I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book.
— christian2017

It's a popular book aimed at non-physicists, so you shouldn't have so much trouble with it. But I think you (and Jeff from Youtube) should start from the basics: non-relativistic classical physics. For instance, the question of what it would be like for someone to move at a constant speed - whether they would feel any different than if they were staying put - was considered by Galileo back in the 17th century. Einstein only refined that treatment, but to understand what Einstein did and why, you first need to understand Galilean relativity. — SophistiCat

I took Physics and Calculus. I'm aware of what Galilean relativity is as far as i understand Galilean relativity.

Specifically, the term Galilean invariance today usually refers to this principle as applied to Newtonian mechanics, that is, Newton’s laws hold in all frames related to one another by a Galilean transformation. In other words, all frames related to one another by such a transformation are inertial (meaning, Newton's equation of motion is valid in these frames). In this context it is sometimes called Newtonian relativity.

Among the axioms from Newton's theory are:

There exists an absolute space, in which Newton's laws are true. An inertial frame is a reference frame in relative uniform motion to absolute space.
All inertial frames share a universal time.
Galilean relativity can be shown as follows. Consider two inertial frames S and S' . A physical event in S will have position coordinates r = (x, y, z) and time t in S, and r' = (x' , y' , z' ) and time t' in S' . By the second axiom above, one can synchronize the clock in the two frames and assume t = t' . Suppose S' is in relative uniform motion to S with velocity v. Consider a point object whose position is given by functions r' (t) in S' and r(t) in S. We see that

I have no problem with this.

We can't have all went to an expensive french school cat.

I assume you've taken Calculus or several Calculus classes?

Treated separately by who? Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics Professor ever said that there were not absolute points in space.
— christian2017

I can readily believe that they never said that, because they wouldn't even know what that means. You can't even explain what you mean, so I suspect that you don't know what you mean either. — SophistiCat

I addressed this with someone else and we came to a conclusion. I'm smarter than you cat. Don't be so mean, you hurt my feelings.

there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.

I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book.
— christian2017

You have to ask what makes an absolute point different from an ordinary point. The answer is nothing: there are no absolute points. There are reference frames, but like a well-known piece of anatomy, everyone has one.

If your book is short, with short chapters, that's an excellent book. If it has an appendix #5, that's even better. That appendix did not survive into subsequent editions.

Relativity (and QM, as i happens) are among the better verified things on earth. — tim wood

Well once i read the book, i can confirm what you are saying. I've read pop physics books that contradict Stephen Hawkings. For whatever reason i like Stephen Hawkings because he makes me think hes right. Not all pop physics books are correct, atleast as far as i can tell. Based on my observation, some pop physics books contradict other pop physics books.

I think the point made in a number of videos made by responsible and knowledgeable scientists on Youtube is that it is very easy to make mistakes in relativity. Among the problems is the need to be precise in definitions. And I know this first-hand from schoolwork. An example of the mistakes that can be made is at hand:

I think you are missing the entire science of quantum physics. Not that I claim to understand it, but listen to some lectures on that topic and have your mind boggled.
— Nobeernolife

The subject is relativity, not QM. He might as well have mentioned Egyptology. And relativity is understandable. QM is not. — tim wood

I guess part of my problem with some of what is being said on this forum topic is does it all line up with what Einstein or Hawking would say.

Sometimes things are misinterpreted based on details not being considered or known by the person talking/writing.

aletheist actually confirmed my main issue. He agrees atleast as far as i can tell that there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.

I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book.

These examples always assume physical matter can retain its form when at that speed. That is the only flaw. Molecules start to break apart at that speed so the barn, her pole and the girl herself will not be a solid object anymore. -Jeff
— christian2017

You have to ask Jeff how he knows the barn and the pole are moving. — tim wood

Thats fair. Arguing about physics when we are amatuers is fun. Even when things get indepth on this forum they never get past pop culture physics books.

Jeff invited me over for dinner tommorow. Did he invite you?

christian2017
965
They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?
— Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist.
— christian2017

I get it now.

I should have read that with the "out the" as "out there"...right? I honestly missed that.

Anyway...the reason I asked about the "Do you believe in aliens"...had to do mostly with the use of the convention "believe in"...rather than the "aliens" part. I knew approximately where you were going, but the "believe in" thingy fucks up so many conversations...I though I would explore it with you.

You were kind. I was being a bit abrasive...and you were not plugging in.

I am an advocate for never using the "believe in" construct. The "Do you believe in God" is a particular pain in my ass. It is a world apart from the more specific, "Do you 'believe' it is more likely that at least one god exists...or do you 'believe' it is more likely that none exist?"

Any chance I get to question someone using the convention...I ask it. You used it...so I asked you.

Thanks for going along with it...and thanks for the courtesy. — Frank Apisa

I go on this site so that i drink less alcohol. I rarely plug in when i'm not at work.

Thank you for your service, Sir!

Small but imo integral point. In the US among the unalienable rights is life (the other two being liberty and pursuit of happiness). In the US military you cannot be ordered to your death. There is, then, as part of being an American, a sense of an absolute value on and for life.

Which fits with a quote attributed to Patton, to the effect that battle was not about dying for your country but making the other poor bastard die for his. — tim wood

You can be ordered to your death if there is a 1% chance you'll survive. (or perhaps the percentage is 26.38%). Either way danger is danger.

Tim Wood i never served in the modern military nor any military, have you?

The problem with the trolly problem is not the trolly, but the track. A train track assumes a fixed route and fixed destination. I think those who apply the trolly problem to real life and dynamic situations are dangerously mistaken in that regard. — NOS4A2

When making a label for a concept you have to use letters and letters require words and words require definitions or examples. Some people are dumb and some aren't but you can't blame a guy for using words to describe the issue.

The fact that people label this general (general) situation as trolly does not reflect their ability to understand complex concepts.

Am I missing something?
— christian2017

I think you are missing the entire science of quantum physics. Not that I claim to understand it, but listen to some lectures on that topic and have your mind boggled. — Nobeernolife

Not all Quantum Physicists agree, and many like to claim QM supports post-modernism. I have read some articles and watched some videos on it. I don't think 90% of these Physicists understand it. I think 10% do but they can't outright prove it.

But this forum is for amatuers for the most part so i will continue like every one else as an armchair quarterback.

I think the idea that the self is an illusion does not make sense. The obvious first complaint is who is having this illusion?

It is obvious to me that perception requires a perceiver likewise experience needs an experiencer and I think these things are indispensable.

I agree with Thomas Nagel that Objectivity is a view from nowhere. I do not see how it is possible to have knowledge without a self or language and other mental representations, concepts and symbols or pain. — Andrew4Handel

"I think the idea that the self is an illusion does not make sense. The obvious first complaint is who is having this illusion?" I agree with this completely

On the second thing yous said:

If there is no god (and i acknowledge that possibility) then all of history is interpreted by flawed humans and flawed perspectives very often create even more or even worse flawed perspectives.

I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?

Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin.
— christian2017

From what I've read, physicist generally say there was no heat at the beginning because there was no motion.. It went from a point, which is not even a size, to size, and then to great size (expanding universe). What triggered this motion is what the debate is about. But there is no point talking about the point (pun intended). All that is actual is the heat and motion coming from it. Causality is tricky when dealing with a point as the limit — Gregory

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force (Newtonian law)

Not saying you are wrong but are you saying this particular aspect of Newtonian physics is wrong?

Ofcourse not all aspects of Newtonian physics were rejected by later physicists.

I actually never heard Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics professor in college say there is not absolute points in space.
— christian2017
What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement. — aletheist

Good we agree on that. This forum topic was in response to someone elses forum topic a week ago. It appears we agree on that. If it sounds stupid its because i was quoting someone elses phrase.

Nevertheless, we could (and arguably should) instead treat velocity as primary and derive our units of distance and duration accordingly. In fact, that is how we get the Planck length and Planck time, the smallest measurable units of distance and duration. — aletheist

The equation for velocity is distance divided by time. I'm still confused. I'm only familiar with Calculus and Algebra.

I watched the first video.

I feel the following adds to the problem (this was taken from one of the people who made comments)

These examples always assume physical matter can retain its form when at that speed. That is the only flaw. Molecules start to break apart at that speed so the barn, her pole and the girl herself will not be a solid object anymore. -Jeff

I think once you are dealing with waves, gases and an array of particles that does change test results. I'll get back to you unless ofcourse you provide more information.

If it was to protect certain members of my family, i would call the police. But i'm not sure i've ever tattled on someone (especially over such a small mistake) on an online forum. My deepest apologies farmer.

Thanks for the videos. It will take me a while to watch them.

oh it was that quote from that article and it had the thing lodged in it. You need hobbies buddy. Don't be so sensitive. You worry too much about nothing.

Where did i put an advertisement? What did i advertise? I don't think i've ever advertised anything ever on this site? Certainly not intentionally.

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean? — Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist.

christian2017
944
↪Frank Apisa

"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better?
— christian2017

Well...if you were asking him if he thought that aliens (other sentient beings) exist on other planets, you could have written, "Do you suppose that there are other sentient beings that exist on other planets?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets have visited planet Earth at some point, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets have visited Earth at some point?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved?

As it is, I have no idea of what you were asking...and still don't. — Frank Apisa

Do you believe in aliens? (the cliche)

Can actually mean all three of these.

Me and the bishop have a history, so i don't always have real indepth conversations with him. He usually ignores alot of the stuff i say and he ignore alot of the stuff other people say.

Very often when talking to someone, people will keep the conversation light and seemingly uncomplex to see if the other person wants to talk about cheese or aliens.

People don't like to type things they don't want to type and they don't like to read things that are wordy. We live in a Meme culture but in my defense i do read as much as most of the people this forum.

I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?

Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin.

Perhaps you come from a different generation so you aren't familiar with "Do you believe in Aliens?"

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Okay...I agree. It is a common cliche.

But you asked me a question...and the question was, "How could i have worded that better?"

I answered that question. Essentially I am saying that a better way would have been NOT to use a cliche...and then I gave you three "BETTER" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking. I still do not know. Which of the three "better" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking...were you actually asking?

Yes...it is a common cliche...but the "cliche" does not actually give an idea of what you actually were asking. — Frank Apisa

You asked me the question of why i didn't word it differently of "Do you believe in Aliens?"

Am I right? Is it true that most scholars are busy destroying values instead of protecting or creating values? Are they responsible for the spread of nihilism?
— Rystiya

Wouldn't you agree that a house that could be demolished was never a good house to begin with? Wouldn't you agree then, that in destroying a weak, ergo dangerous, house, we would be creating the necessary space to erect a better quality abode for ourselves and our children?

The problem is, not that the values that have been attacked by "scholars" are good, but that there are no good theories to take their place. I would prefer this situation to be due to a lack of trying but it might be the case that no system of values can ever be picture perfect.

Also, I don't want to criticize traditional value systems; firstly because it's no easy task to create them and secondly because they've kept society running more or less smoothly. Perhaps, if feeling compelled to pass a comment, we might say that though we don't question the wisdom of the values themselves, the foundations for them are weak. We should probably keep the values themselves, at least those that seem reasonable to the modern mindset, and focus on finding a good, strong bedrock for them. — TheMadFool

I really like you.

Nor Linear Algebra which is not something i'm good at.

I understand clocks aren't time, but clocks are built from particles and particles are effected by the fact that the linear velocity can't exceed C when you combine the X, Y and Z vectors. This does effect the clock's ability to "accurately" tell time.

I do agree there could be an overarching objective time but thats a separate forum topic.

In reality you could be right (small possibility) about what you believe, but modern Physicists (as opposed to 100 years ago when things were less refined and more simple and less things were known) crunch numbers, run tests and do math all day. What do you know about Newtonian Physics because you really can't skip Newtonian Physics nor Calculus.

A material object traveling at half the speed of light relative to an observer would be measured by that observer as longer than the same thing not moving at all relative to that same observer.
— aletheist

Shorter. — tim wood

Not saying you are wrong but "by that observer as shorter", are you referring to the length of the material object? I'm familiar with this sort of phrase but Physics isn't something i study all day so could you unpack or rephrase that slightly?

I do not see how that follows at all. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of whether or how we measure it, suggesting that continuous motion through spacetime is a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space or discrete instants in time treated separately. — aletheist

Treated separately by who? Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics Professor ever said that there were not absolute points in space. I understand that some things should be treated separately but just as in a mathematical proof if you want to prove that two things can be treated separately you have to prove that they can be treated separately

I feel these two things have a close relationship to each other. Perhaps i'm wrong.

Absolute time says that things change merely speeds and that our perceptions are not the reality of time. — Gregory

Can you rewrite that sentence and then we can continue on, otherwise i'll have to rethink everything else you said based on that sentence. That was your first sentence.