|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 19, 2022 14:52:51 GMT -5
Absolutely, you just have to marvel at some of those fruits, and presume some level of objectivity too, for all that to be possible. I'm also very excited by that JW telescope, can't wait to see what it can do. I can never quite get my head around how those things can be literally looking into the distant past in 'real-time' …. so to speak.  I always feel that competent science does not conflict at all with spirituality. It just reveals details about Nature (aka Creation) that we can't easily see with the naked eye. And sometimes what it reveals is just awesome. Those details could be hidden from obvious sight by being too small, too large, too distant, or requiring some deduction from observations. That's a key difference: do you look at science as a way to reveal and be in awe of Creation (good), or do you look at science like your intellect is dominating life and "knowing" everything (nope). In addition to the folly of scientism, there is also a folly of science denial, or ignorance. But that would be another thread. Great distinction rob. But, I have to say .. even then .. even then.  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 20, 2022 7:45:21 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me.
So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'.
It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right.
But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard ….
(I do have an answer to that one actually).
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2022 10:16:07 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). FWIW, I don't think that the JW scope uses light from the sun to do anything other than, perhaps, power solar cells for operating alignment or focusing machinery. The reason that the scope has 7 ultra-thin super-wide layers of reflective mylar (or whatever the material is) with heat-dissipating spaces between them is to block solar radiation so that the light receptor can stay at 400 degrees below zero. I may have mentioned this fun fact in a past posting, but the JW scope is so powerful that it would be able to detect the heat of a single bumblebee from a distance of 240,000 miles! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2022 11:17:15 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). Here's some more mind blowing bits... Apparently, our common sense notion of time and "simultaneity" is not how the physical world behaves, and this becomes very apparent at these astronomical scales. While it takes the light 10 billion years to travel from that distant point, that's only from our point of view. From the point of view of a traveler, the closer they get to light speed, the closer their trip duration gets to zero! So in a way, from "light's point view", it gets to its destination instantly. And there is no "speed limit" in the universe, from the point of view of the one doing the speeding. [*] As others have said, yes this a "concept", at least partially. But this apparent property of nature has been verified by experiment now, and our GPS system wouldn't work if the software didn't account it. (The satellites travel "forward" in time, slightly, relative to Earth.) Tolle's comment from his first book, when he woke up in the morning after his experience... "I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes."[*] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2022 11:53:28 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). Here's some more mind blowing bits... Apparently, our common sense notion of time and "simultaneity" is not how the physical world behaves, and this becomes very apparent at these astronomical scales. While it takes the light 10 billion years to travel from that distant point, that's only from our point of view. From the point of view of a traveler, the closer they get to light speed, the closer their trip duration gets to zero! So in a way, from "light's point view", it gets to its destination instantly. And there is no "speed limit" in the universe, from the point of view of the one doing the speeding. [*] As others have said, yes this a "concept", at least partially. But this apparent property of nature has been verified by experiment now, and our GPS system wouldn't work if the software didn't account it. (The satellites travel "forward" in time, slightly, relative to Earth.) Tolle's comment from his first book, when he woke up in the morning after his experience... "I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes."[*] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilationIt's actually less of a mindbender if you revive the "ether" concept. There are presentations I've seen about 4-D motion .. there's some term here that escapes me, something like "world vector", but the bottom line is that because which direction is time is arbitrary, you can think of everything moving at the speed of light in four dimensions, even when at rest in any given frame, and the reason for time and object/space dilation (different measurements of the same ruler from different frames), from this perspective is simply a matter of accounting. Another point worth mentioning is that photon's have no mass, and the asymptotic approach to c comes with the reciprocal asymptotic approach to infinite mass, so the idea of an observer riding a photon is actually a funny nonsense.  Again, the photon's energy can be thought of in terms of this ubiquitous universal motion at c. Galileo was the first to understand and write about relativity, and the reason Einstein never won a Nobel for relativity is because he didn't cite anyone in his first paper on special relativity, despite that he used the Lorenz transformation. It's a counter-intuitive topic, but it all makes perfect sense if you put your thinking cap on for long enough.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2022 11:57:16 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). 'cause noone wants to see that??  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 20, 2022 12:25:46 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). 'cause noone wants to see that?? Close! But the answer is …. because I never type cr@p on a keyboard. Everything I say is gold  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 21, 2022 12:34:49 GMT -5
Absolutely, you just have to marvel at some of those fruits, and presume some level of objectivity too, for all that to be possible. I'm also very excited by that JW telescope, can't wait to see what it can do. I can never quite get my head around how those things can be literally looking into the distant past in 'real-time' …. so to speak. I have no clue how any of that works. people smarter than me explain the pretty pictures and we get to say "yay mankind, good one, keep at it"  Yeah, 'Oooh, look at the pretty pillars of creation'. Now, what am I gonna have on my toast!
This dude is my favourite smart person to listen to about physics and cosmology. Although he's an astrophysicist, he delves into other stuff like, the formation of life on Earth (so biology too), as well as time, gravity - allsorts, and tries to tie stuff together. That's what I like. He used to be in band before he became a professor, and now he makes some pretty cool documentary series for the BBC. I just finished watching a good one called Universe. He's got a passion for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 21, 2022 12:40:30 GMT -5
Close! But the answer is …. because I never type cr@p on a keyboard. Everything I say is gold well since this is ST instead of the astrophysical daily...
sounds like a very active ME at the nub of your comment hehe I promise you'll never hear ME claim any different …. on any forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 13:30:21 GMT -5
Here's some more mind blowing bits... Apparently, our common sense notion of time and "simultaneity" is not how the physical world behaves, and this becomes very apparent at these astronomical scales. While it takes the light 10 billion years to travel from that distant point, that's only from our point of view. From the point of view of a traveler, the closer they get to light speed, the closer their trip duration gets to zero! So in a way, from "light's point view", it gets to its destination instantly. And there is no "speed limit" in the universe, from the point of view of the one doing the speeding. [*] [...] It's actually less of a mindbender if you revive the "ether" concept. There are presentations I've seen about 4-D motion .. there's some term here that escapes me, something like "world vector", but the bottom line is that because which direction is time is arbitrary, you can think of everything moving at the speed of light in four dimensions, even when at rest in any given frame, and the reason for time and object/space dilation (different measurements of the same ruler from different frames), from this perspective is simply a matter of accounting. Another point worth mentioning is that photon's have no mass, and the asymptotic approach to c comes with the reciprocal asymptotic approach to infinite mass, so the idea of an observer riding a photon is actually a funny nonsense. Again, the photon's energy can be thought of in terms of this ubiquitous universal motion at c. Galileo was the first to understand and write about relativity, and the reason Einstein never won a Nobel for relativity is because he didn't cite anyone in his first paper on special relativity, despite that he used the Lorenz transformation. It's a counter-intuitive topic, but it all makes perfect sense if you put your thinking cap on for long enough. About that, maybe consciousness also has no "mass", or the entire universe is conscious, "photons" included? I've never heard this 4D everything-moves-at-c idea, and I don't see how it could work. The vectors do not add up. If you have a link with more explanation, please share. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2022 20:48:43 GMT -5
It's actually less of a mindbender if you revive the "ether" concept. There are presentations I've seen about 4-D motion .. there's some term here that escapes me, something like "world vector", but the bottom line is that because which direction is time is arbitrary, you can think of everything moving at the speed of light in four dimensions, even when at rest in any given frame, and the reason for time and object/space dilation (different measurements of the same ruler from different frames), from this perspective is simply a matter of accounting. Another point worth mentioning is that photon's have no mass, and the asymptotic approach to c comes with the reciprocal asymptotic approach to infinite mass, so the idea of an observer riding a photon is actually a funny nonsense. Again, the photon's energy can be thought of in terms of this ubiquitous universal motion at c. Galileo was the first to understand and write about relativity, and the reason Einstein never won a Nobel for relativity is because he didn't cite anyone in his first paper on special relativity, despite that he used the Lorenz transformation. It's a counter-intuitive topic, but it all makes perfect sense if you put your thinking cap on for long enough. About that, maybe consciousness also has no "mass", or the entire universe is conscious, "photons" included? I've never heard this 4D everything-moves-at-c idea, and I don't see how it could work. The vectors do not add up. If you have a link with more explanation, please share. The bottom-line on it is commonsense: if we're moving relative to one another then what seems like time to you is going to seem like space to me and vice-versa. As far as "consciousness" is concerned ... dude. Sabine gives a nice proof of the notion, doing the algebra, but doesn't give the geometric motivation of the vid I saw last year. This guy takes it further but sort of assumes "we're all traveling at c" as a premise. However, he actually justifies the premise with the idea that fascinated you from the start: that time doesn't pass for photons. .. that one starts slow but reaches the topic a few minutes in. youtubes algo will probably eventually do the rest for you if you watch those. The one I saw was quite crystal. Here's a fun tangent: another vid I saw on the topic some years ago that was (ahem) illuminating was of a " photon clock" on a passing train. It demonstrates space dilation quite clearly: the photon travels to a point both observers can agree on at some delta-t, but the space it has to travel as seen by someone standing still at the side of the tracks traces out a set of triangles, where as to the guy on the train it just went up and down. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2022 20:56:53 GMT -5
well since this is ST instead of the astrophysical daily...
sounds like a very active ME at the nub of your comment hehe I promise you'll never hear ME claim any different …. on any forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2022 22:34:41 GMT -5
About that, maybe consciousness also has no "mass", or the entire universe is conscious, "photons" included? I've never heard this 4D everything-moves-at-c idea, and I don't see how it could work. The vectors do not add up. If you have a link with more explanation, please share. The bottom-line on it is commonsense: if we're moving relative to one another then what seems like time to you is going to seem like space to me and vice-versa. As far as "consciousness" is concerned ... dude. Sabine gives a nice proof of the notion, doing the algebra, but doesn't give the geometric motivation of the vid I saw last year. This guy takes it further but sort of assumes "we're all traveling at c" as a premise. However, he actually justifies the premise with the idea that fascinated you from the start: that time doesn't pass for photons. .. that one starts slow but reaches the topic a few minutes in. youtubes algo will probably eventually do the rest for you if you watch those. The one I saw was quite crystal. [...] Cool, thanks. I think I've seen her channel before but then forgot about it. Subscribed. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2022 23:03:41 GMT -5
Part 4 - The Eclipse of Epistemology Ironically, perhaps, the quote from Einstein is also an aspect of scientism because what the universe IS is incomprehensible. That which is comprehensible lies only within the realm of cartoons generated by the intellect, so his statement is, essentially, a huge conceit. In fact, what the universe IS is NOT governed by scientific laws. Scientific "laws" are nothing more than concepts about the universe of abstractions that scientists imagine--a meta-reality rather than an actuality. Anyone who has seen deeply into the true nature of THIS will be humbled by what is seen. That humility is rarely seen in proponents of scientism. Last night at a dinner party a 70 year old guy said, "It's too bad that we were born when we were because in another twenty years or so, scientists will be able to reverse aging and humans will be able to live forever." He went on to claim that science would also soon cure all major diseases, reverse global warming, and learn how to create lasting peace on earth. His statements reminded me of well-known silicon valley reductionists who talk about consciousness being uploaded into machines so that messy fallible illogical human bodies will no longer be necessary. One of those fellows (I think it was Thiel) has stated that the human digestive system also needs to be improved so that excrement comes out in small odorless pellets! One has to smile at such a naive faith in technology. That sounds more like Musk than Thiel. But they are all into transhumanism. And in schools they sorta promote that kind of belief in the (potential) omnipotence of science. I used to believe that, too. There's a movie about this, Replicas (2018). If you haven't seen it, worth watching just for the sake of understanding their weird logic. Their idea of eternal life seems to be that by capturing the content of a person's mind at the point of death, downloading it as data, then cloning the body and then uploading that data again into the brain of that new body you'll get an exact replica! Or so they think. This assumes, of course, that the brain is some kind of storage cabinet instead of a switchboard, a sending and receiving mechanism; and further that our sense of identity and self is part of the physical instead of the non-physical. There's also the issue of seeing the body as a mechanical device that needs repairs and tweaking from the outside, instead of the body as a living being that can maintain and restore and repair itself if given the opportunity. So the list of flawed premises re: transhumanism, at least from my perspective, is rather long. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 22, 2022 11:23:38 GMT -5
Amazing how movements take on the features of those they oppose. It's fascinating.
|
|
Again, the photon's energy can be thought of in terms of this ubiquitous universal motion at c. Galileo was the first to understand and write about relativity, and the reason Einstein never won a Nobel for relativity is because he didn't cite anyone in his first paper on special relativity, despite that he used the Lorenz transformation. It's a counter-intuitive topic, but it all makes perfect sense if you put your thinking cap on for long enough. 
