Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: entiformatie]
    #3470356 -

Well the photons will always be travelling at the SAME speed, the speed of light, so I think even if you bounced the photon off a moving electron you couldn't tell much about the SPEED of the electron, because it would cause no change in the speed of the photon. Only a change of direction.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: trendal]
    #3472005 -

Hmm, well it was my understanding that electrons move near the speed of light and therefore pinpointing their location is impossible. I know that in chemistry nowadays, we look at electron orbitals where there is a 95% chance the electron will be there at any given time. We also look at the spin, energy level, and other quantum properties. However, i must admit that i am a lowly graduate biochem student so these theoretical principals are well out of my area of expertise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3472840 -

Quote:
"The distinction between past, present, and future
is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Albert Einstein

A stubbornly and persisently dead Einstein.



Swami, here is another attempt at translation. Einstein said the notion of time is an illusion, and you are citing an example, his death, as evidence that time is not an illusion. However, your evidence does not support the notion that time exists, it is simply an interpretation of the world through a model that already assumes time. This is an instance of begging the question, or assuming as a premise your conclusion.

But it is a pardox everyone who starts to seriously consider more eastern-type ways of experiencing has to "resolve." Einstein was able to appreciate reality/experience from a perspective that did not assume time and the other assumptions we generally make. He saw that our attempt to capture truth in the relatively pathetic net of language and mathematics is an example of the most fundamental error humans make- mistaking the model for what it represents or mistaking the map for the territory.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: buttonion]
    #3474525 -

Realization is instantaneous...any delay is failure to accept. Time is the metaphysical manifestation of humanity's drive to resist?

There was an excellent article on Deoxy.org about this recently.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: buttonion]
    #3474547 -

Are you saying that events do NOT unfold in an essentially irreversible sequence?

If I say I am going to call you tomorrow evening at 6PM PCT, will you be unable to pinpoint the arrival of that approximate moment?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3475322 -


I am saying that the conceptualization of experience as occuring along a linear time line from earlier to later is an abstraction, just like all explanations are. Furthermore, it is an unverifiable assumption- it cannot be empirically supported or refuted. Absolutely metaphysical. Any example you cite, including the one above, assumes time a priori. Yes, I could deduce from the assumptions of your question an answer- I could run the algorithm given the input you listed, and spit out the output- but this does prove a parameter of the system itself. Just like Godel has shown, any system makes assumptions which the system itself cannot prove.

The Cartesian/Newtonian model of the universe as space/time/matter is absolutely a useful model. The model does a great job at accounting for experience. But like all models, it is JUST a model.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: buttonion]
    #3475410 -

The Cartesian/Newtonian model of the universe as space/time/matter is absolutely a useful model. The model does a great job at accounting for experience. But like all models, it is JUST a model.

:thumbup:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: trendal]
    #3475673 -

Yes, one learns not to trust the nervous system's models of reality, too. :laugh:


--------------------
Acid absorbs 47 times its weight in excess reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: buttonion]
    #3475872 -

This is mere wordplay. Using your rhetoric, one could say that a "tree" does not exist because it is merely a mental construct; a snapshot of a process. While this is "true" in some sense, time is no more nor less a construct than a tree. If we followed your point to it's ultimate natural conclusion, NO communication beyond hand signs or grunts would be possible.

Please respond without using one single model. Thank you.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3475890 -

While this is "true" in some sense, time is no more nor less a construct than a tree.

When's the last time you visually "looked" at time? Or touched it? Or smelled it? Can you tell me what time is?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3475893 -

Swami said:
"The distinction between past, present, and future
is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Albert Einstein

A stubbornly and persisently dead Einstein.


I'll give an Einstein example from 'The Fabric of the Cosmos':

Imagine that Swami is on a planet in a galaxy far, far away - 10 billion light-years from earth - idly sitting in his living room. You are on earth and you and Swami are not moving relative to each other. Since you are at rest relative to each other, you and Swami agree fully on issues of space and time: your and Swami's now are the same. After a little while, Swami stands up and goes for a walk in a direction that is directly away from you with 10 miles per hour. The events on earth that belong on his now-list(his present) are events that happened about 150 years ago, according to you!

* the now-list('list' with things that happen now everywhere) of Swami is 'updated' with the time it takes for the light to travel to Swami. The described effect has nothing to do with the time it takes for light to travel. This should be shocking if you have never read about Einstein. :smile:

How do we make the distinction between past, present and future? The present for Swami is our past. This effect is very small with small distances and velocities, but it's there! We just don't experience it, but there is a difference between our past, present and future if we move relative to each other.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3475957 -

I will now play a game, consistently referring to  Trendal's recent post. :grin:

Swami said:
This is mere wordplay.


Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants: Name it. "If there is a NAME used as a label for IT, then it must be wrong, even if it isn't. The NAME, now a "proof" of sorts, can be used as a sledgehammer if IT comes up again."

Quote:
Using your rhetoric, one could say that a "tree" does not exist because it is merely a mental construct; a snapshot of a process...... If we followed your point to it's ultimate natural conclusion, NO communication beyond hand signs or grunts would be possible.


Sleight of Mind Fallacy: Lunatic Fringe. "If a person is making an imaginative or novel point, the approach here is to push the idea to a radical extreme generally agreed to be bad. The extreme can be either real or imagined. The hope here is that the other person will reflexively back off and retreat to a defensive position, thus short-circuiting the progression of the argument."

Just havin' some fun. :grin:

I'll return with my actual reply full of invigorating and insightful content directly related to the subject itself at a later point in time, when I have time to write it up. :wink:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: fireworks_god]
    #3475996 -

Addendum: To clarify my general attitude on general approaches, the unchallenged mind is a dangerous thing, and sometimes, an external challenger is necessary to counteract the imbalance of another unchallenged mind. :wink:

Like I said, I was simply havin' some fun. :laugh:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: trendal]
    #3476031 -

When's the last time you visually "looked" at time? Or touched it? Or smelled it? Can you tell me what time is?

Dodge City. Is a tree a mental construct? Yes or no.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3476492 -

Could you then please explain what "time" looked, smelled, or felt like when you experienced it in Dodge City?

Can you define what time is? You never did answer that...

Is a tree a mental construct? Yes or no.

No, it is not. I can see, touch, smell, or taste (if I feel bold enough) a tree. It is a physical object and exists as such. The concept of "tree" is obviously a human construct...but that does not change the physical existance of the tree in any way.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3476586 -

if you were travelling the speed of light and then turned a light on, wouldn't the light from the vessel moving at the speed of light be able to travel faster than the initial speed of light?...you know, something about relativity or something.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: TODAY]
    #3476664 -

No, photons have no mass and therefore no mometum.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3476740 -

Quote:
Swami said:
No, photons have no mass and therefore no mometum.



Einstein just turned over in his grave :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Edited by trendal (12/10/04 02:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: Swami]
    #3476801 -

i thought all things had mass...even energy has mass...so wtf is light? if you aren't mass or energy, what's left?


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Albert Einstein [Re: trendal]
    #3476826 -

What was Einstein probably most famous for? A simple little equation:

E=mc^2

So, photons don't have any mass, so they can't have any momentum, you say? Well, as Einstein pointed out, mass/energy are interchangeable. Photons may not have mass, but they DO have energy! We'll re-write the equation to solve for the mass:

m=E/c^2

The energy of a photon is given by:

E=hf

where h is Plank's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Momentum is defined as:

p=mv where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v is the velocity.

So, for any given photon the momentum is given by:

p=(hf/c^2)v

or

p=hf/c

So yes, photons do, in fact, have momentum. If they didn't a whole lot of things would be different in this universe of ours :wink:

Note to readers: Swami will either refuse to respond to this, or will fire off a one-liner to pass over the issue.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Albert Einstein quoted sleepy 2,125 6 11/02/07 10:30 PM
by Grok
* Albert Einstein got bored +
( 1 2 all )		 Icelander 1,677 23 12/03/07 05:14 PM
by CJJ
* Einstein was smart enough to believe in himself not God
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 hitch hiker 8,563 83 05/30/08 10:31 AM
by backfromthedead
* Photon Entropy?
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 4,069 54 04/10/09 02:44 PM
by Zanthius
* Einstein: Religion and Science trendalM 1,713 13 01/25/04 09:15 AM
by trendal
* Does A Photon Have Awareness?
( 1 2 all )		 DiploidM 3,233 28 05/04/05 04:27 PM
by cubed
* Einstein's Riddle
( 1 2 3 all )		 Muppet 3,156 48 06/06/04 10:50 AM
by Ped
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,301 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,985 topic views. 0 members, 121 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.