It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can the Universe exist without Logos?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


Why would Logos need to prevent anything from going faster than light?

Logos is logic and reason in of itself and we discover this logic and reason through scientific theories that become scientific law through replication and observation.

I keep saying there's a difference between scientific law and political law. You keep talking like it's the enforcement of marijuana being illegal in a State.




posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Can you explain your comment?

Logos also gives us the sequential arrangements of information

If Logos arranges information then it controls it no?



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





A physical law or scientific law, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."


You still have yet to explain how physical laws are not theoretical principles, and how theoretical principles are not propositions, and how propositions are not born of the imagination.

Saying my argument is "silly", and typing "LOL" in uppercase letters is not an argument. In fact it is ignorance.

Do the “laws” of physics and math exist? If so, where? Are they discovered or invented/created by humans?

How the Modern Physics Was Invented in the 17th Century, Part 2: Source of Fundamental Laws



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by bastion
 





All of these require gravity to exist in order to form. If gravity was at a different constant then different objects would be formed, as is easily demonstrated by altering the value of G.


Change the value of G and lets see what happens. I'm being sincere here. Change the value of G and lets see what happens to gravity.




I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling now. None of that makes any sense. If I imagine the speed of light is 2m/s it doesn't change the speed of light. If I imagine I can fly, it doesn't mean I can fly. Why? Because the Physical laws prohibit it.


That's the way things work. We describe the way things work and model the way things work. We cannot say that something is prohibiting them. That is a meaningless statement. There is no governing law issued by some divine judge at work prohibiting things from performing certain acts. That's just the way things are.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)


You don't know what G is, do you?

No, I've studied Maths and Physics for years, there are physical laws, limits and constants everywhere in nature - that's the whole reason we can apply and develop equations and laws. Of course there are limits prohibiting actions, you can't fly or pick up buildings, move galaxies using your mind or see x-rays with your eyes. That doesn't mean they were designed or created though.

Please do yourself a favour and learn basic science and wait until you have a grasp of the subject before trying to teach others as what you're claiming is completely devoid of logic or reason.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





You don't know what G is, do you?

No, I've studied Maths and Physics for years, there are physical laws, limits and constants everywhere in nature - that's the whole reason we can apply and develop equations and laws. Of course there are limits prohibiting actions, you can't fly or pick up buildings, move galaxies using your mind or see x-rays with your eyes. That doesn't mean they were designed or created though.

Please do yourself a favour and learn basic science and wait until you have a grasp of the subject before trying to teach others as what you're claiming is completely devoid of logic or reason.


You said you can demonstrate how changing G puts the universe out of whack. Please demonstrate.

Show me these limits and constants everywhere in nature. If they are everywhere, please show me, because apparently I cannot see them.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


reply to post by Aphorism
 


If G is too high then objects would collapse into black holes, hence no stars, planets etc... If G was too low then matter would not group together to form stars planets etc...If you knew what G was then you'd already know this.

Speed of light, speed of sound, charge of an electron, Planck constant, wavelength of R/G/B light. I could go on, there's hundreds, some of which are found here: physics.nist.gov...


edit on 2-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the Logos..if you believe in that.
edit on 2-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





If G is too high then objects would collapse into black holes, hence no stars, planets etc... If G was too low then matter would not group together to form stars planets etc...

Speed of light, speed of sound, charge of an electron, Planck constant, wavelength of R/G/B light. I could go on, there's hundreds, some of which are found here: physics.nist.gov...


You said you could demonstrate it, not type it out. "If" statements work in the imagination only.

Show me the constants in nature, not on a webpage.

As a math expert, you do realize that math is abstract correct?
edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
That makes no sense at all. You want me to physically alter the gravitational force throughout the Universe? If you understood what G is and how equations work you'd know I already demonstrated it by inputing different values of G into the equation.

No. Pure maths is probably abstract, the rest of it certainly isn't. I don't know why you're trying to claim you understand these things when you clearly don't have a clue.


edit on 2-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





That makes no sense at all. You want me to physically alter the gravitational force throughout the Universe? If you understood what G is and how equations work you'd know I already demonstrated it by inputing different values of G into the equation.


I was showing you the absurdity of your "demonstration". You can demonstrate nothing more than thought experiment and math, Much like your constants "everywhere in nature". Someone looking at numbers is going to tell me how the universe works?




No. Pure maths is probably abstract, the rest of it certainly isn't. I don't know why you're trying to claim you understand these things when you clearly don't have a clue.




Mathematics is the abstract study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2] structure,[3] space,[2] and change.[4][5][6]



mathematics |maTH(ə)ˈmatiks|
pl.noun [ usu. treated as sing. ]
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics).
• [ often treated as pl. ] the mathematical aspects of something: the mathematics of general relativity.

edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



If they are everywhere, please show me, because apparently I cannot see them.

You cannot see them because, for about the tenth time, they are intelligible objects, not sensible objects. You don't understand the difference, nor, apparently, the difference between cause and effect, but ignorance of science and philosophy is endemic these days.

With that, I'm done trying to cure you of this spell of ignorance you've put yourself under. Until you understand why planets, which need gravity to coalesce, cannot be the generator of the gravitational rules of physics, you'll never get beyond the logical irrationality that you've convinced yourself must be true.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





You cannot see them because, for about the tenth time, they are intelligible objects, not sensible objects. You don't understand the difference, nor, apparently, the difference between cause and effect, but ignorance of science and philosophy is endemic these days.


Yes they are abstract, meaning they are not objects at all. That's been my argument this whole time. Over your head and under your knees I suppose.

Time to break out of antiquity old-timer.
edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Again, you have been shown time and time again and you still make the same comment. You're just trolling with this nonsense.

These things aren't imaginary and you have been showed this. Tell me how Arthur Eddington's observation of Einsteins theories were imaginary? What was imaginary about his observation and the subsequent replication?

Again, you have to be trolling because you have been showed this time and time again. You keep saying show me how this can be the case and then you're shown and then you ignore what was said.

When gravitational waves are discovered it has nothing to do with imagination:


On Monday, astronomers announced a profound discovery. Etched into the most ancient radiation that pervades the entire universe and created — literally — at the dawn of time, gravitational waves have been directly observed, giving us a glimpse as to the nature of the inflationary period that is theorized to have caused the rapid growth of our universe just after the Big Bang.


NOT IMAGINATION, DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

When it's a theory, it's something different.


Firstly, what are gravitational waves? These are theorized to be ripples through spacetime and are generated by the motion of anything massive through space. Imagine throwing a ball into a pool — the ripples created will propagate away from the point of impact and bounce around the pool’s surface. Gravitational waves are very similar, but instead of rippling across a ‘surface,’ they propagate at the speed of light through 3-dimensional space. They are theorized to be generated by the collisions of black holes and are thought to have been generated in abundance by the inflationary period just after the Big Bang nearly 13.8 billion years ago.

Einstein’s equations of general relativity predict their existence and there has been some indirect observational evidence of gravitational waves leaching orbital energy from binary star systems. As we are spacetime entities, we should also be able to detect their presence as they pass through local spacetime. Multi-million dollar experiments like Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) in Louisiana and Washington have been built to directly detect gravitational waves propagating through Earth. However, their detection has so far proven to be frustratingly illusive.


Again, you have been told this over and over again but you keep trolling.

Einstein's equations predict there existence. After this prediction Scientist look for OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE NOT IMAGINATION. They then look to replicate the observation. How were these waves observed?


Located in the arid atmospheric conditions of Antarctica, BICEP2 has a very clear view of the cosmos. The instrument has the ability of measuring the polarization of the weak signal from the CMB radiation. On Earth, sunlight can become polarized if it reflects off a mirror or when filtered by polarized sunglasses (thus reducing the glare). The radiation from the ancient CMB can also become polarized and gravitational waves have the ability to manipulate the polarization of the incoming radiation. The specific type of polarization, known as ‘B-mode polarization,’ is what BICEP2 has been looking for. And now, with a high degree of certainty, astronomers have found it.

“The swirly B-mode pattern of polarization is a unique signature of gravitational waves,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, of Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, co-leader of the project. “This is the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky.”


news.discovery.com...

This isn't imagination, this is OBSERVATION AND NEXT COMES REPLICATION.

The data coming back from the Planck Satellite isn't imagination, it OBSERVATION.

You have been told this over and over again yet you keep trolling with this same nonsense.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by bastion
 





That makes no sense at all. You want me to physically alter the gravitational force throughout the Universe? If you understood what G is and how equations work you'd know I already demonstrated it by inputing different values of G into the equation.


I was showing you the absurdity of your "demonstration". You can demonstrate nothing more than thought experiment and math, Much like your constants "everywhere in nature". Someone looking at numbers is going to tell me how the universe works?




No. Pure maths is probably abstract, the rest of it certainly isn't. I don't know why you're trying to claim you understand these things when you clearly don't have a clue.




Mathematics is the abstract study of topics such as quantity (numbers),[2] structure,[3] space,[2] and change.[4][5][6]



mathematics |maTH(ə)ˈmatiks|
pl.noun [ usu. treated as sing. ]
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics).
• [ often treated as pl. ] the mathematical aspects of something: the mathematics of general relativity.

edit on 2-4-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)


Like I said you clearly have no idea what you're going on about if you don't consider equation manipulation a demonstration. This is further compounded by your inability to comprehend laws and constants or basic things like how these constants were measured in the first place.

Just how exactly do you think the world works if there is no underlying fabric to any of it? What do you think science is if it's not looking for patterns and numbers in nature in order to understand the processes.

I've read plenty of bizarre theories, especially on ATS, but yours really does take the biscuit.

As for the Wikipedia definition of Maths, it's an amateur understanding at best. Why do you think Maths is known as the Universal Language, why it's used in the search for intelligent life and why scientists and mathematicians are of the view it would exist with or without humans.


edit on 2-4-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Against my better judgment I will post again.

Let me see if I have got this right.... That G, h, c are all imaginary, along with the laws that go with them, in the sense that they are tools constructed by humans to model reality, no more real than the radius of the universe say, or a meridian on a sphere. That is not to say they don't have a value or fairly accurately depict reality though (within our current limitations).

When it comes to 1+1=2 then I am not so sure. Does 1+1 still equal 2 in the absence of a universe? Of course when you remove space and time we humans have a hard time imagining anything. Maybe saying 0=1+(-1) might be more relevant as a starting point of how you get something out of nothing.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


I couldn't have said it better myself.


I've read plenty of bizarre theories, especially on ATS, but yours really does take the biscuit.


It's basically confusing the debate in mathematics on whether mathematics are discovered or a human invention and not understanding the debate isn't about the laws of physics being imaginary but it's about mathematics.

It has nothing to do with the thread. It's obvious from the Wolfram video on the 1st page that he looked at the video and somehow came to the conclusion that Wolfram meant the laws of physics are imaginary.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Would you care to answer the question I presented to you?
edit on 4/2/2014 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


Asked and answered. You and the other guy must be twins because you do the same thing. No matter how many times your questions are answered, you keep asking the same questions.

You have changed from governing bodies, enforcement and now control. What's next?

I keep answering you.

Political laws are not the same as Scientific laws. A Political Law can be a human invention that depends on each state. One state can make marijuana illegal and another state makes it legal.

This isn't the same with Scientific laws. A Scientist can't come up with a theory and then viola it's a Scientific law. Scientist can't change these laws in the way a governing body can change the law.

Logic and reason is inherent in Logos, so there's no need for enforcement, governing bodies, control or whatever term you come up with next.

You only need control when laws can be broken.

The logic and reason of Logos can't be broken. Try waking up tomorrow and changing Bohr's radius with your imagination. Wake up tomorrow and try changing the strong nuclear force or Planck's Constant with your imagination. The most we can do is discover the logic and reason inherent in Logos through theories that become scientific law through observation and replication.
edit on 2-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Can you explain your comment?

Logos also gives us the sequential arrangements of information

How does something arrange without controlling? These are your words, not mine. By your statement you have declared that Logos controls, not me. Can we focus here?


You have changed from governing bodies, enforcement and now control. What's next?

I have not changed anything. The OP seems to detail that there is logic that arranges information, governs, enforces, controls. All of which are the same thing I should add.
edit on 4/2/2014 by usertwelve because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 


I never said anything about governs, enforces or controls.

Quote me where I said any of these things.

The sequential arrangement has nothing to do with control, governing or enforcement.

Logic and reason are inherent in the arrangement we discover through the scientific method. Again, I have said this over and over again.

Show me where II said anything about governing, enforcement or control. This is how I first answered your question and nothing has changed accept the way you keep trying to ask the same question with a different word.


You don't need to enforce scientific laws the same way you would enforce a law that says Marijuana is illegal. You don't need to enforce the physics that gives us a blue sky to look at. You don't need to enforce gravity in the same way you try to enforce the law that says running a red light is illegal.

Logos gives us the sequential arrangements that gives us fundamental laws of physics and gives us the universe that we see and experience. Logos also gives us the sequential arrangements of information that gives us the laws that Politicians come up with. Everything comes back to Logos.


Sadly, you and the other guy have a habit of asking the same questions over and over again even after you get an answer.
edit on 2-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join