Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:59 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3223
I don't know much about science or physics I admit....but I do have the broken bones and scars which would provide some evidence of motion, mass, velocity, momentum, and resistance. You seem to be challenging material realities in the realms of time and space by proposing these are illusions rather than another form of reality within a greater framework of reality whereby the two are interfaced by mind and spirit as controlling agencies providing a tension and connection between the two forms of reality. I know I've pointed this out to you before but the Papers say that Paradise IS INDEED a "point" of actual location which can be located FROM any other point of location by proper coordinates and movement across space and that all other points of time and space are measured relative to this place outside of or encompassing time and space...as we understand it. I think it is an error to project the physics of either reality upon the other and hope to understand or explain anything at all. But what do I know?

As to "godless" science...that's a rather harsh and inaccurate accusation against Newton. Science was born by religionists and philosophers on our world...the disconnect came later and pretty much due to the closed minds of other religionists as I recall from my history studies...but then, I am no history scholar either. Still, your claims and your rhetoric do not appeal by their delivery and contradictions....just sayin'.....

From wiki:

"Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."[125]

He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[127] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[128] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."[129]


Last edited by fanofVan on Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:20 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 881
it doesn't matter if mass doesn't have a point and space moves and time is circular...you can still do valid, useful math, and its not nonsense at all. physicists already know that they are setting an artificial frame of reference in order to do the math. they already know they are straightening spacetime, stopping motion and generalizing position. if it was nonsense we wouldnt be able to land on mars

i doubt that the uncertainty principle has had much effect on materialistic philosophy or led any scientist toward faith in god...it can easily be seen as purely mechanical. and the UB says the wave/particle problem doesnt exist, there are only particles and wavelike manifestations. but notice all of the useful science we do with that manifestation that some would call nonsense!

your ideas about the role of mind in the observer effect are just a common misconception among metaphysicians...its an effect of mechanical instruments

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1][2]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[5]

Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.[6][7]


<plays whack-a-mole with superstition and seconds what Brad posted> ^5


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
fanofVan wrote:
I know I've pointed this out to you before but the Papers say that Paradise IS INDEED a "point" of actual location which can be located FROM any other point of location by proper coordinates and movement across space and that all other points of time and space are measured relative to this place outside of or encompassing time and space...as we understand it


Not exactly.

0:4.12 The Isle of Paradise has a universe location but no position in space.

Here TUB distinguishes universe location from position in space. Paradise is an exclusive reality. It does not reside in time and space as you suggest above.


fanofVan wrote:
I think it is an error to project the physics of either reality upon the other and hope to understand or explain anything at all.


Nothing can be projected upon another. Spirit realities project finite realities. Show me where I am conflating the two.

fanofVan wrote:
As to "godless" science...that's a rather harsh and inaccurate accusation against Newton.


You do me a disservice here in your statement. I never accused the person of Newton of being "godless". I made that reference to his book.


fanofVan wrote:
"Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."[125]


Anyone can claim anything such as the above, but Newton, wittily or unwittingly, usurped the Creator with his laws of motion. It matters not what Newton warns, what he does and writes about inertia (momentum) is akin to a great clock initially wound and set in motion. His gravity does not explain the motions of the planets.

fanofVan Wrote:
He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[127] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[128] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."[129]


Thanks for this Wiki quote because it is most telling. As we know, Newton and Leibniz were contemporary competitors. But while both pay the necessary lip service to the divine, I am inclined to be more on the side of Leibniz. At least Leibniz concedes to "God Almighty" winding his watch from time to time. TUB in the following quote suggest that the winding of the watch is continuous and not just from time to time. Newton concedes nothing of the sort. His law of inertia has God winding the clock and ceasing to function thereafter. Whose side would you take?


4:1.6 The Universal Father has not withdrawn from the management of the universes; he is not an inactive Deity. If God should retire as the present upholder of all creation, there would immediately occur a universal collapse. Except for God, there would be no such thing as reality. At this very moment, as during the remote ages of the past and in the eternal future, God continues to uphold. The divine reach extends around the circle of eternity. The universe is not wound up like a clock to run just so long and then cease to function; all things are constantly being renewed. The Father unceasingly pours forth energy, light, and life. The work of God is literal as well as spiritual. "He stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth upon nothing."



Makalu wrote:
it doesn't matter if mass doesn't have a point and space moves and time is circular...you can still do valid, useful math, and its not nonsense at all. physicists already know that they are setting an artificial frame of reference in order to do the math. they already know they are straightening spacetime, stopping motion and generalizing position. if it was nonsense we wouldnt be able to land on mars


And what is the artificial frame of reference that physicist use? A frame of reference for motion must be stillness, Paradise. Paradise is outside of space-time, so how do they do this? Einstein used a constant as a frame of reference, the speed of light. But a moving space precludes a constant speed for light.

What do you consider to be valid math? Show me any valid math in QED and I will believe you. Start with Gauge math. And try going to Mars without a supercomputer and thrusters to correct trajectories here and there and everywhere.


Makalu wrote:
i doubt that the uncertainty principle has had much effect on materialistic philosophy or led any scientist toward faith in god...it can easily be seen as purely mechanical. and the UB says the wave/particle problem doesnt exist, there are only particles and wavelike manifestations. but notice all of the useful science we do with that manifestation that some would call nonsense!


65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm.

Do you doubt that the above quote refers to the uncertainty principle? Is TUB referring to a "purely mechanical" paradox?


toto wrote:
42:4.14 The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a “quantum” or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation.


Tell me again that TUB says that the wave-particle problem doesn't exist. Is a never-ending confusion a problem? Perhaps not, but confusion is never a good thing.

Makalu wrote:
your ideas about the role of mind in the observer effect are just a common misconception among metaphysicians...its an effect of mechanical instruments


TUB disagrees with you in this statement. The observer is responsible for observations and measurements. What mind came up with the mechanical instruments? It is the same mind that is responsible for this "effect". And this is because the human personality can be a cause of space-time events.

12:5.11 The human personality is not merely a concomitant of time-and-space events; the human personality can also act as the cosmic cause of such events.

42:11.3 The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space.


Makalu wrote:
Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.[6][7]


Who are you quoting here? My sources are a Mighty Messenger and a Life carrier. I do not think that these two are confused.

Makalu wrote:
As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[5]


Thanks for quoting a celebrated atheist.


BTW, what you refer to as useful science is in reality useful engineering. This is the result of very little genius and much perspiration.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 881
you can find a number of different reference frames and manifolds in use

the math is valid enough (something you cant get through your head)...and far more valid than anything you've come up with to "replace" it

the uncertainty principle is valid in many areas, and mechanical in the one you've questioned but not valid concerning wave/particle uncertainty...particles dont become waves as a result of measurement and vice/versa...its just a particle or its manifestations (if you don't think the UB says this it's not my problem). you've quoted issues with wave interactions which is nothing to do with the slit experiment and wave/particle uncertainty. and science was no stranger to uncertainty in general and measurement in particular before the uncertainty principal either which throws more doubt on your attempts to make it a seminal moment in human philosophy..from which you now divert.

you said " This meant that a real person with a real mind could influence matter. Mind over matter was born! " but it's not the creative mind that directly influences matter, it's just the mechanical instrument doing it and only occurs in time with the operation of the instrument not with any operation of a mind. Minds have understood that they can direct energy and control matter since they started banging rocks together. Minds also have no problem measuring velocity and position simultaneously as can be seen in the math they created.

i bet you have some killer fruitcake recipes


Last edited by Makalu on Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:49 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1358
Makalu wrote:
i bet you have some killer fruitcake recipes

Yeah but that might take a gravitational anomaly investigation to find out.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
you can find a number of different reference frames and manifolds in use


There is but one reference frame for motion, motionless Paradise. Are you advocating for multiple universes?


Makalu wrote:
the math is valid enough (something you cant get through your head)...and far more valid than anything you've come up with to "replace" it


What does, "valid enough", mean? And I do not want to replace the math, I want to discredit it. Motion is not subject to the precise calculations that are necessary at the quantum level with such small radii of curvature. The calculus utterly fails. I have not replaced any math, as you have falsely asserted.


Makalu wrote:
the uncertainty principle is valid in many areas, and mechanical in the one you've questioned but not valid concerning wave/particle uncertainty...particles dont become waves as a result of measurement and vice/versa...its just a particle or its manifestations (if you don't think the UB says this it's not my problem). you've quoted issues with wave interactions which is nothing to do with the slit experiment and wave/particle uncertainty. and science was no stranger to uncertainty in general and measurement in particular before the uncertainty principal either which throws more doubt on your attempts to make it a seminal moment in human philosophy..from which you now divert.


Were you eating fruitcake when you wrote this? Perhaps Nigel or Riktare or Brad can agree with you but I cannot.

Makalu wrote:
you said " This meant that a real person with a real mind could influence matter. Mind over matter was born! " but it's not the creative mind that directly influences matter, it's just the mechanical instrument doing it and only occurs in time with the operation of the instrument not with any operation of a mind. Minds have understood that they can direct energy and control matter since they started banging rocks together. Minds also have no problem measuring velocity and position simultaneously as can be seen in the math they created.


When dealing with motion, measurement requires an accurate timepiece. And science uses the motion of the cesium atom to obtain the most precise clocking possible. In measuring the velocity of anything you need a time source. The totality of space respiration destroys the motion of the cesium atom's value as a time source.


12:5.1 Like space, time is a bestowal of Paradise, but not in the same sense, only indirectly. Time comes by virtue of motion and because mind is inherently aware of sequentiality. From a practical viewpoint, motion is essential to time, but there is no universal time unit based on motion except in so far as the Paradise-Havona standard day is arbitrarily so recognized. The totality of space respiration destroys its local value as a time source.

Makalu wrote:
Minds also have no problem measuring velocity and position simultaneously as can be seen in the math they created.


Tell us precisely how your mind can measure velocity (change in position over a time interval) and position simultaneously. TUB says it is impossible, yet you claim that minds have no problem with this. Does not this paradox confront you as a mortal man?


toto wrote:
65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm.


Last edited by toto on Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:36 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1358
I ate fruitcake one time, and immediately had a gravitational anomaly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 881
Quote:
There is but one reference frame for motion, motionless Paradise. Are you advocating for multiple universes?


you asked me what frame of reference physicists use...i'm not even bothering to read the rest of your post. you just want to argue any little thing that pops into your head for the sake of being argumentative


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
you asked me what frame of reference physicists use...i'm not even bothering to read the rest of your post. you just want to argue any little thing that pops into your head for the sake of being argumentative


Of course you may do as you please. But heed the warning from nod. That fruitcake will will force you to the gravitational anomaly receptacle. :lol:

48:4.18 Humor should function as an automatic safety valve to prevent the building up of excessive pressures due to the monotony of sustained and serious self-contemplation in association with the intense struggle for developmental progress and noble achievement. Humor also functions to lessen the shock of the unexpected impact of fact or of truth, rigid unyielding fact and flexible ever-living truth. The mortal personality, never sure as to which will next be encountered, through humor swiftly grasps—sees the point and achieves insight—the unexpected nature of the situation be it fact or be it truth.

Nod, you are certainly good humored. Thank you for that.


Last edited by toto on Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:34 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1358
You're welcome. What's not to enjoy when you can have a little fun on a Saturday.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
I would like to bring up some other known anomalies in astronomy that may very have to do with gravitational anomalies.

The Cassini Saturn anomaly is one of these that astronomers have tried to explain by proposing a large planet out in the Kuiper belt. Are they discovering yet another of the total of 12 planets that TUB tells about? Mind you, no actual observations of a planet have been made. NASA has the temerity to admit that, "these discoveries are through mathematical modeling but not actual observation". That's just the kind of science that climate change hangs its hat on.

Then there is the famous Pioneer anomaly that has NASA still searching for an explanation. The latest is to blame radiative anisotropy. Since when can a radiative process be anisotropic to the extent of producing thrust? Is not radiation isotropic? Light, a radiative energy expands in all directions unless its source is placed in the very focal point of a parabolic mirror (flashlight).

And what about the perihelion of precession of Mercury? Is it still 0.43 arcsec/century? And is this calculated to the 88 day/year of Mercury or on the 365 day per year of Earth?

I would again go out on a limb and suggest that gravity acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass. And perhaps TUB is suggesting that relativistic gamma is more a function of mind and personality than mere motion (velocity). After all, the Midwayers consider our relativity mere dabblings. Time dilates for sure but Einstein made no account for the possibility of time contraction. Consider the following two quotes from TUB. Our spacecraft are mind built and mind extensions, in a way. We maintain radio communication with them and redirect them with thrusters. Then there is alway that pesky expanding, moving space to contend with.


195:7.5 The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a “psychologic projection"—a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man. And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of “relativity” disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.


12:5.11 The human personality is not merely a concomitant of time-and-space events; the human personality can also act as the cosmic cause of such events.

Are we unwittingly causing the anomalies?


42:11.3 The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space.

Here is more from TUB suggesting that the observer that is observing is a cause as well as an effect of universe mechanisms.


Einstein did not take well to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics because it suggested a dead end for theoretical physics. Imagine the unemployment rate if you add all of these physicists that could not calculate until their minds were raw. The slavery of mathematics infected physics and is now epidemic.

12:9.5 Your religion is becoming real because it is emerging from the slavery of fear and the bondage of superstition. Your philosophy struggles for emancipation from dogma and tradition. Your science is engaged in the agelong contest between truth and error while it fights for deliverance from the bondage of abstraction, the slavery of mathematics, and the relative blindness of mechanistic materialism.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group