|
tribesman
Never satisfied



Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 948
Loc: Down by the river
|
|
Anything a little more radical ?
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: tribesman]
#23638471 - 09/12/16 01:11 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you want it...
http://peswiki.com/powerpedia:teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity
http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Teslas-opinion-on-Einsteins-theory-of-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics
Tesla on relativity: "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8
Nikola Tesla was not a scientist, he was an engineer, and frankly some of his declarations about physics, and even many of his inventions, were nothing besides harebrained. I personally have a problem with the fact that none of that stuff can be reproduced, but you asked for radical.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
tribesman
Never satisfied



Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 948
Loc: Down by the river
|
|
Thanks DQ,
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: tribesman]
#23638663 - 09/12/16 02:40 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Halayudha
Empath



Registered: 01/02/15
Posts: 242
Loc: fresh air, nature, warm-i...
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
Awesome post and thread, tribesman. . I've been interested in physics a lot lately, it's a good way to go. . .
You definitely brought up one of the most interesting questions - at some places in the continuum it very much seems like space and time can be transcended - and other times it seems like we are in a 4-dimensional universe. . .
So - for me, it has been very interesting to explore, and so forth -- another is the point that many make that time illusory. . . I suppose there are even more clues and what not that inspire me to learn more, but this one is a fascinating one. . . If time is illusion, what all does this mean? And is it so?
Not to answer, but to simply continue to ask and ponder. . .
'The Future of Spacetime' is a wonderful book I highly recommend; it's not math-heavy. . . One thing for instance - to sum up - it would seem that nature has automatic safe-guards against paradoxes... The timeline is secure, in other words. They were able to come to this by working out simple objects, yet it would seem to hold true for more complex ones as well (in talking about time-travel and paradoxes).
Anyway I look forward to seeing where it goes.
Okay - specifically, about time being illusion - my main question or inquiry is then into time-travel ... this has been a main one of science-fiction for many decades and further back; for natural reasons,... it's very intriguing! I found it interesting to see Hawking write a couple of times about 'imaginary time,' and so forth. . . just a bit of the puzzle!
I do recommend and love that book - it's just a few articles by some good names in the field.. Hawking, Thorne, Novikov, etc. . . very enjoyable!
-------------------- Call me not rebel, though { here at every word {in what I sing If I no longer hail thee { King and Lord { Lord and King
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: Halayudha]
#23644369 - 09/14/16 11:13 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, that is a good book. Richard Price, who wrote the introduction to it, was one of my physics professors in college. Small world.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
tribesman
Never satisfied



Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 948
Loc: Down by the river
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: Halayudha]
#23648043 - 09/15/16 04:33 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Halayudha said: Awesome post and thread, tribesman. . I've been interested in physics a lot lately, it's a good way to go. . .
You definitely brought up one of the most interesting questions - at some places in the continuum it very much seems like space and time can be transcended - and other times it seems like we are in a 4-dimensional universe. . .
So - for me, it has been very interesting to explore, and so forth -- another is the point that many make that time illusory. . . I suppose there are even more clues and what not that inspire me to learn more, but this one is a fascinating one. . . If time is illusion, what all does this mean? And is it so?
Not to answer, but to simply continue to ask and ponder. . .
'The Future of Spacetime' is a wonderful book I highly recommend; it's not math-heavy. . . One thing for instance - to sum up - it would seem that nature has automatic safe-guards against paradoxes... The timeline is secure, in other words. They were able to come to this by working out simple objects, yet it would seem to hold true for more complex ones as well (in talking about time-travel and paradoxes).
Anyway I look forward to seeing where it goes.
Okay - specifically, about time being illusion - my main question or inquiry is then into time-travel ... this has been a main one of science-fiction for many decades and further back; for natural reasons,... it's very intriguing! I found it interesting to see Hawking write a couple of times about 'imaginary time,' and so forth. . . just a bit of the puzzle!
I do recommend and love that book - it's just a few articles by some good names in the field.. Hawking, Thorne, Novikov, etc. . . very enjoyable!
Thanks for opening the discussion up a bit, and DV but I know the consensus perspective, and I know the pseudo side.
What I'm interested in is something like minkowski space but with a geometry where the singularities of both cones are sunken down to the base of the opposition cone,and with space representing one cone with a expansive/contracting dynamic (big bang/big crush) and with the other representative of time, with a singularity at the narrow end (now) and possibly a state of temporal unfloldment and stasis with no time's arrow (never) at the open end. I think this is similar to the theories on black holes; that beyond the event horizon time stops, this represents a localised temporal expansion and spatial collapse. Now to go out on a limb I speculate further that the primary mechanism of the brain is to generate a low order temporal singularity. This then becomes the temporal-metric within which consciousness grows.
Edited by tribesman (09/15/16 05:05 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: tribesman]
#23648101 - 09/15/16 05:02 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well thoughts have a locus to them, and that is good enough to say thoughts are defined..and if they are indeed defined..than you have a substance so to speak..a form..
|
tribesman
Never satisfied



Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 948
Loc: Down by the river
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: BrendanFlock]
#23648133 - 09/15/16 05:12 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It's about temporal metrics, an architectonic of time. Now it's not a substance, and it has no form as such that we are obviously aware other than the procession off entropy. This fits with the expansion from a singularity theory.
|
tribesman
Never satisfied



Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 948
Loc: Down by the river
|
Re: Is non-spatial actually a thing ? [Re: tribesman]
#23648159 - 09/15/16 05:19 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The vision I have is of a reversal of the consensus view of reality in which space is an expanding extension and and time is an animating flux ( sort of reminiscent for me of quantum mechanical theories way over my head), to a state where time is fully unfolded and space is present as a flux; how can that be modelled mathematically?
|
|