The Scientific Explanation for why Everything is Everywhere
Think of a chair in your mind. Where is that chair in your mind? It is everywhere in your mind. There is no where it cannot be in your mind.
What is outside the earth? - The Solarsystem
What is outside the solar system? - The universe
What is outside the universe? - More universe
What is outside the...
This quandary has kept many a mind awake at night ever since people have believed that the body creates the mind rather than believing that the mind creates the body.
The body is finite and isolated. Viewing the universe as being like this will inevitably lead to the confusion stated above.
The mind however is infinite and therefore cannot be isolated. In your mind you can move in any direction you like without ever stopping. To view the universe in the same way ends the confusion of the inability to understand space (galactic or general) without borders.The chair is not in your mind. A brain is not a magical object-creating device.
Some people think the universe is endless. Others think is has boundaries beyond which there is endless nothing. Whether this or some other theory is true has no implication for what you do here on earth.
The "mind" is a name for self-awareness which is an emergent property of the brain. There is no actual object called "the mind". It is something the brain does. Like legs do walking and sun does shining. Not only is it not limitless, it doesn't exist as all other than as an action of the brain.
I don't know why any of this confuses you. Perhaps you need to read more Wittgenstein.The mind is absolutely endless. You can move in an upwards direction in your mind and never stop. Just one of the many limitless things the mind can do.
There is no actual object called "the mind".
The mind is a subject that creates objects.
By the way could you give me a clinical scientific definition of endless nothing?I don't need to because the mind does not exist in a literal sense. It is a reification of an action, a myth. Much like we attribute breakages to gremlins, or inspiration to muses. The action (thinking) is real but it occurs on the brain, the reifiation (mind) is a no more real than leprechauns or thunderbirds.
Reification of action - like thought/thinking?
Reification - like space or time or energy?re·ify
transitive verb \ˈrā-ə-ˌfī, ˈrē-\
: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing
To regard an action as an action (time, thinking) is not reification.
To regard an action as an object is.What about thought, space and energy?
Does actions occur or exist?
How does one know whether the given word is an object or concept?
I was not disputing but clarifying.
Dict: Real:- Actually existing as a thing.You really need to get a dictionary.
Real : the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.And you really need comprehension skills. He was stating "The action(thinking) is real".
So, are you stating that 'thinking' is a thing that actually exists?Re-read my post. Notice is says this...
"You really need to get a dictionary."And you really need intelligence, so pray to your gods, Claire Evans.
Get a grammar book too. "notice is says this..."?Seriously dude, that's an interesting stretch to say I'm Claire.
*hint* sockpuppets support themselves, they don't argue against themselves *hint*You might have inside knowledge about the workings of minds of paranoid schizophrenics, Claire, I don't know, but asking somebody to clarify will not make one person another.
Unlike you, neither of us made any claims (in this forum) and we are defining our words, so no need to argue, while you deliberately avoid the precise meaning of words to protect your nonsense and put forward idiotic ideas like earth accelerating.
And 'objective' means irrespective of the observer.We know that is an obvious lie because I consistently point you towards dictionaries despite your failure to do so.
Sorry, but I did not put forth that theory. Einstein did. His original gedanken (thought experiment) ...
And I consistently told you, in dictionary space is a BORDERLESS expanse and asked you how a borderless expanse can expand. It is with regards to the border that we say something expanded or contracted. Without the border how did you make out the expansion?
Why the free fall is towards the earth and not sky? What happens when two Balls are dropped simultaneously on both poles, to which ball does earth accelerate?Please show me the definition where it defines space is a "borderless expanse"? I have only seen definitions where it describes space as "boundless"
I also noticed you completely ignored that thought experiment.So you do not even know the meaning of boundless?
www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=boundless
Don't just read, try to understand what is written, though it is a difficult task for you.Wow, your dishonesty is boundless.
I asked you to show me the definition of space as YOU claimed it to be a "borderless expanse"
I did not ask for the definition of boundless.Your lack of comprehension is surpassed only by your use of nonsense.
For the record, Jomine provided this dubious definition of space; "borderless expanse"
After twice requesting a source for that definition, Jomine has not provided it, but uses the definition to support his argument.For the record, borderless and boundless are synonyms.
And using either word, show how space expand."Synonyms for boundless: great, illimitable, immeasurable, immense, incalculable, indefinite, inexhaustible, infinite, limitless, measureless, no catch, no end of, no end to, no holds barred, no strings, no strings attached, tremendous, unbounded, unconfined, unending, unlimited, untold, vast, wide open unlimited, vast, endless, immense, infinite, untold, limitless, unending, inexhaustible, incalculable, immeasurable, unbounded, unconfined, measureless, illimitable."
Borderless: Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.
Once again, Jomine was asked to show his claim that the definition of space is a "borderless expanse"
As yet, he has still not produced that definition.Very good, you are catching up.
Till now you were against the proper use of words. Now borderless can be split as border-less. Border means boundary. But that is not the point. The point is I did use the exact word from the dictionary and asked 4 or 5 times to explain.
hubpages.com/forum/topic/104863?page=3
But you consistently refused, even refused to acknowledge the question. But when I used it in a different manner you jumped on. Why the enthusiasm? Because, you do not want to discuss but just protect your religion.That is a lie considering I consistently point you towards dictionaries, which continue to fail.
Borderless does not mean boundless.
But, you have not provided any sources to support YOUR definition of space being a "borderless expanse" after repeated requests. Then you attempted to claim that borderless and boundless are synonyms, yet there are no sources indicating that either.
Without a leg to stand on, you now change your claim again and have substituted other words, "border means boundary"
The dishonesty is boundless.
Calling Relativity a religion only shows unfathomable depths of incredulity. What's even more stunning is the reason why anyone would want to deny outright the reality of how Special and General relativity must be considered when building GPS satellites. What the heck is the point?Your attempts to save your religion by all means is shameless.
I did provide the definition as boundless expanse ( http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/104863?page=3) and asked how that expands which you consistently ignored. Even now you do not address the issue but going sideways. And you simply do not understand the meaning of the words nor what a definition is, and is just parroting what your priests told you.
The question was and is 'explain how a boundless/border-less/limitless expanse expands'.
The reason for rejecting relativity? The same reason any intelligent person will reject religion. The explanations are all irrational and down right idiotic.
Remember the word reification. Relativity reify concepts like space and time and then make it expand and slow. Also it deals with what the observer sees(frame of reference). Physics has no role for observer, why a person see what he sees is neurology. Physics is observer independent, objective.
Of course you will reject all these, for it destroys your religion. So like any other believer you shut your eyes and ears and repeat the same nonsense.Incredulity is a fallacy.
Once again, Jomine is attempting to divert away from his claim that space is a boundless expanse by not providing sources for his definition. His own hub is obviously as worthless a source as his posts here.
Relativity has been confirmed to a great deal accuracy in countless experiments, models and modern conveniences, like GPS. To simply reject it out of hand by calling it idiotic only serves to demonstrate sheer incredulity and dishonesty.
Your gibberish only destroys your credibility.
I'm done here.
It will help if you post the definition we are meant to be discussing. But something can be unbounded/boundless just like a property can be unfenced. It means the boundary is not marked,
But for future reference dictionaries conventionally defines space as "a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions"
That is, space is just any given area one wished to refer to. e.g. the space between me and my dog, the space where i park my car etc.
There are a lot of sub-definitions for more specific uses of the word. But this would be the primary meaning.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space
4. a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction
It can also mean there is no boundary.
When you say limited you have to say what limits it. What is outside the limit? What makes up the limit? Your definition is the definition of an area. An area as marked on a paper or map or surface. When it is 3 dimensional (though strictly speaking you cannot apply dimension to space), where are you going to mark it.
Imagine a circle “0”. It is the circumference (margin/boundary) that makes the circle, that differentiate it from the surrounding. When it is 3D, a globe, we call it the boundary or the edge or surface that gave it shape and differentiate it from the next object. So what is the ‘limit’ of space? What is outside the limit?
When a globe expands, how do we make out the expansion- By seeing that the edges moved out. How do you know space expanded?
For convenience, space between two objects or space marked out, as in parking space or country. Space between 2 objects or the static distance between two objects we define as space, the latter we can call an ‘area’ or ‘place’.
Exactly. There are sub definitions and that is why one has to define to clarify which one he is using. When somebody says space ‘expands’ he is reifying the concept space to an object.
There are only objects in this universe, from the smallest atom to the largest star, and is separated by space. In other words the absence of things between things is what we call space- our conceptualization of nothing.
You might have noticed that irrespective of the location on earth all objects fall to earth.
In your thought experiment the dropped ball accelerate to the floor when the lift goes up and stays at the place when it is going down.
In case of earth if one pole is going down then the opposite is going up but the ball always falls to the ground.As I already said, the explanation of gravity being indistinguishable from an accelerating surface, as shown in the thought experiment have been verified to a very accurate degree. This is the effect we observe of the balls and the earths surface, regardless of poles.
The thought experiment explained nothing.
Earth is accelerating in relation to what? Sun?
Unlike the lift whose both surface are moving in the same direction, the earth's one side will be moving away and the other moving towards and hence a ball dropped in the surface moving away will go to the surface while the others ball should give away which is not happening. And on the poles the ball dropped has no reason to fall on the surface, but will only move Parallel and away from the surface.
And indistinguishable does not mean 'the same'.You are free to deny that, obviously it explains a lot.
I have no idea what you're asking and how it pertains to the explanation?
Gibberish.What doesn't suit you is gibberish?
Instead of inside the lift, in case of earth we are standing on the top and bottom surfaces outside the lift. Now the lift is going up(Or down). The man standing on the Top surface Drops the ball and it goes to the surface of the lift. The one on the lower surface, on dropping the ball, which way will it go, towards the lift or away from the lift?
What is the relevance of earth acceleration?'
Because you said earth is accelerating towards the ball. Acceleration and velocity is in relation towards another object and acceleration of earth in relation to sun is not 9.8m/s2
You are just like any other believer, who just parrots nonsense and say miracles prove it.That makes no sense, how does someone stand on the bottom of an elevator? Can I assume he is defying gravity so you might make a point?
Both balls will appear to move in the direction of the earths surface.
Gibberish.A few posts before you were saying nobody knows how gravity works, now you know how?
In lift people cannot stand on the bottom surface, good. Then pray how that thought experiment has any relevance to earth where anybody can stand on top or bottom surface.
And also tell how earth Accelerate towards north pole and south pole at the same time? An object can move only in one direction at a time.I said no such thing, I said scientists are looking for the mediator, they can observe how gravity works.
Because there is a huge mass called Earth between two people as opposed to very little mass between the lift people.
The acceleration at the surface of the earth is present over the entire planet.Anybody can observe. It is the scientist who comes up with the explanation.
What you said about the lift is because there is a huge mass beneath the lift called earth to attract the ball, my question was what attract the ball to the earth and how, not lift.
What causes the acceleration and how?
Regarding evidence as opinions,
you might have noticed that you are using the same evidences presented by theist as the evidence to god, to refute god. The evidence has to be explained first and it is up-to the prosecutor. The finger print of the accused on the knife used for murder is an evidence for guilt or evidence he was trying to save the victim, depending on whose side you are.I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the earth DOES NOT attract anything, Bill.
The properties and characteristics of gravity. This needs to be explained thoroughly with math, Bill, but you abhor math because you have no understanding of math and consider math a religion.
"You Stupid Relativist . Com has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it
is: an irrational religion."
http://youstupidrelativist.com/
Yes Bill, I do understand you consider physics a religion.
"If you are new to Mathematical Physics, you may also wonder what a relativist is.
A relativist is a disciple of the late Pastor Al Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of the
Church of Relativity. This sect is a branch of the religion of Mathematical Physics."
http://youstupidrelativist.com/And you still haven't said why the ball fall to earth instead of staying in the atmosphere, where I dropped it.
You can call me Bill, if you want to protect your religion.I would much rather you just came out with your userid rather than a sock puppet. Or, did your userid get banned here?
You might be the son of Einstein Beelzedad,
but what you are doing is evading the question that you are unable to answer and doing what a priest does, shout and evade.My only attempt is to get you to choose one of your userid's so that your sock puppets are not joining in creating a merry go round. Then, we can talk.
You won't listen to people explaining your error re: this definition. Thus forward progress in this conversation seems to be impossible.
You haven't explained what my mistake was. I gave a detailed analysis of your definition,
You an at least say what limit your space.
And you are against definition, then what idea are you conveying when you say space expand?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/104863#post2229812
You see the black stuff around the earth? That is space. Where is its limit? The canvas, but there is no canvas around earth, so is it sun, alpha century, the most distant galaxy or quasar? Or there is sapce beyond that?We have both said space is any 3D area.
Whether the universe is finite or not is not relevant to the concepts being discussed. I don't even have an opinion on whether it is or not.The other question was what limit space as you said space is a limited extent.
Earth is limited by its surface(space outside), a building by its walls(air outside), a parking 'space' by a marking, similarly what limits space? What is the boundary between space and what ever is outside? What is outside the limit of space? Without a limit, we cannot say it expand.Space is a word. We use it to discuss any area under consideration. So when I say the space in my living room, or the space between my ears or the space int he attic, you know the conversation we are having is about that space.
Or... most people would know that.
And operations like gravity apply to spaces such as the space between the surface of a planet and the upper extent of its atmosphere.
You really do need to read Wittgenstein to see what you are doing wrong by trying to make language change reality, rather than just using it to describe reality.
Aieeee: pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers!
The mind is not endless. Composed of the interactions of a finite number of brain cells, the number of possibilities for interactions is definitely limited and so is the mind. While the number is very, very large it is not infinite.
I said the mind was limitless not the brain. You can move in any direction in your mind and never stop. That is an example of limitlessness. If a film maker were allowed to live forever then they could make film after film. Another example of limitlessness. Although in any case the brain is physically unlimited in the micro sense as you can continuously divide up particles into more particles and those particles again into more particles and so on. I.E. you split the atom and discover you have neutrons and electrons. Then you can work on splitting them, and then whatever is inside them. In any case if the brain reflects the universe then it is clearly endless as the universe is endless:
As that image didn't come out so well this video demonstrates the idea better and that the visible physical world is truly created by the invisible mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6HNx-i0KLsThere is nothing but denial of many scientific theories in favor of God. Gibberish.
No Bill. It's that you are just denying out of your irrational beliefs.
You mind is not a place. It is the activity of your brain. Saying it is limitless is like saying you eyes are as large the distance you can see, or your ears go to moon when you hear the words of an astronaut. It just isn't true. but you will never understand that there is a different between what an organ can do and the space is occupies..
A good book to read is called "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain"
Says something about the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I like that idea.- jomine9posted 11 years ago
0The mathematical explanation you gave is EFE, and I said it is a DESCRIPTION of warped space. I didn't ask a description and any how, you said it is not warped space that cause gravity, but the earth accelerating to the ball.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EinsteinFi … tions.html
The Einstein field equations are the 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations that describe the gravitational effects produced by a given mass in general relativity
Do you even understand what irrational means? In fact do you know anything other than parroting.
If you can read, the equation does not explain HOW GRAVITY WORKS. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY A BALL DROPPED FROM YOUR HAND GO TO THE SURFACE OF EARTH AND NOT TOWARDS THE SKY.
IF YOU(RELATIVITY) CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT, WHY YOU CALL YOURSELF A SCIENTIST?
Who cares? I'm taking down my account.
First unlike you, I'm using my proper name, not a pen name. My name is Jomine. The idiotic moderators banned me from posting on forums because they take offense for every word, so I created jomine9, which is my email id, just to answer -pschyeskinner, but I found him no different than you.
Steven pinker and Kahneman after years of research found that the modes of human thinking are preset. You are born to be a believer and no amount of reasoning can change that, you will just parrot nonsense. And my own experience in hubpages showed that the morons will never think but simply regurgitate what is taught them. I came here in search of some answers and I got it. So why should I waste any more of my time? I'm off. You believers can continue argue whose god is best. If you gain upper-hand then you can start start burning at stake, the scientists.Well, let us know which userid you're going to use from now on, Bill. Then, we can proceed with your questions.
Yes Bill, we want to be sure about your location.
Related Discussions
- 18
What is the scientific explanation as to why a sheep would give birth to human-f
by ngureco 11 years ago
What is the scientific explanation as to why a sheep would give birth to human-faced lamb?
- 475
Is the existance of God Logical?
by Alem Belton 12 years ago
After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually only believe things that can be proven but...
- 10
Speaking in tongues, there must be a scientific explanation?
by lovelyjubbly 11 years ago
Speaking in tongues, there must be a scientific explanation?
- 15
Is the existance of God Logical?
by Alem Belton 11 years ago
Is the existance of God Logical?After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually...
- 4
Is there a scientific explanation for ghosts?
by Om Paramapoonya 12 years ago
Is there a scientific explanation for ghosts?
- 4
What is the scientific explanation for love?
by JP Carlos 12 years ago
What is the scientific explanation for love?