time and black holes

[Mr Skeptic]

I didn't say I wasn't interested in "why" only that it doesn't matter. Since you brought god into this, let me give you an alternate theory of why: Gravity is the way it is because god wanted it to be that way. Now then if you have a better theory, to show it is better you would have to demonstrate "how", not "why" it is better.

[sananda]

I didn't say I wasn't interested in "why" only that it doesn't matter. Since you brought god into this, let me give you an alternate theory of why: Gravity is the way it is because god wanted it to be that way. Now then if you have a better theory, to show it is better you would have to demonstrate "how", not "why" it is better.

 

Maybe I should have said why carrots are carrots orange, but nobody really cares about that.

 

It is not a better theory, it is really a hypothesis as to why... this could lead to other predictions... one that I am suggesting is that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate but light from distant sources is red shifting as it travels towards us because it's medium, space, is less dense in here.

 

This hypothesis also works for light traveling towards an observer, but not sure about light traveling away... i suspect that c remains constant for light traveling towards a sensor that is moving towards the light but not so sure about what happens to it if the sensor is moving away from it in terms of frequency shifts, speed etc... i'd like to see what experiments have been done with measuring light speed and their results. If there are anomalies perhaps this hypothesis can address them.

 

I could be way off here but I would suggest that moving towards the source light speed remains at c and frequency probably balances too because time of the sensor relative to the source has sped up, in which case light speed balances.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is not a better theory, it is really a hypothesis as to why... this could lead to other predictions...

 

This is what I've been repeatedly telling you. It absolutely doesn't matter "why", but as you rightly point out, sometimes trying to answer "why" leads to other predictions of how the universe behaves. Without said predictions, there is no point in wondering which of the infinite potential answers to "why" is the best.

[sananda]

This is what I've been repeatedly telling you. It absolutely doesn't matter "why", but as you rightly point out, sometimes trying to answer "why" leads to other predictions of how the universe behaves. Without said predictions, there is no point in wondering which of the infinite potential answers to "why" is the best.

 

yes but to validate the why people perform experiments and if we can get to the why of gravity we can combat it...

 

if we just analyse the way it works and forget about the why, we will always be trapped by it.

 

can you see the difference?

[Edtharan]

"Why" is only desired when you don't understand the "How".

 

Humans are a Story telling species. We like to have things in nice little stories (as an example the "Closure" that many therapists talk about is an example of the desire for little stories).

 

For example: Do you want to know "Why" alight switch works? Well if you know "How" it works you can see that the "Why" is meaningless.

 

Why a light switch works is because I flip the switch. But that really doesn't tell you much, other than there is a little story constructed by people around that event.

 

How a light switch works is governed by mechanics, electricity and electromagnetic waves. These tell you nothing about "Why" the light switch works, only how. But they do offer much more in the way of useful information.

 

Once you know how a light switch works, the "Why" you flicked the switch says absolutely nothing about the system of the light switch (it is external to it).

 

Newton knew this. That was what he was writing about. "It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

 

It is enough to know that they exist and that they follow the laws that Newton laid out. In other words, it is enough to know "How" the motions of the planets operate and that the "Why" is irrelevant to the fact that they do work.

 

Not only that, in the very first sentence he is saying that he is yet to discover the cause of gravity. that is "how" it operates, not why...

[sananda]

I think why delves further than how...

 

It is like John Connor telling Arnie, "you just can't go around killing people" and the computer keeps saying "but why"

 

The how I have no problem with, you need the how obviously to do stuff, but to truly be master of something you need to get to the why.

[swansont]

I think why delves further than how...

 

It is like John Connor telling Arnie, "you just can't go around killing people" and the computer keeps saying "but why"

 

The how I have no problem with, you need the how obviously to do stuff, but to truly be master of something you need to get to the why.

 

Why?

[sananda]

touche.

[Edtharan]

I think why delves further than how...

 

It is like John Connor telling Arnie, "you just can't go around killing people" and the computer keeps saying "but why"

 

The how I have no problem with, you need the how obviously to do stuff, but to truly be master of something you need to get to the why.

But as I said, people feel the need to create stories. You even used a story to show that it doesn't need a story.

 

I really don't think you got what I was saying in my last post.

 

people are story tellers. They feel the need to make a story out of something so they feel that they understand it.

 

Real life is not a story. And this means that things that occur in reality don't conform to the concepts of a story.

 

"Why" is all about creating a story for it. It requires a "motivation.

 

There is not such motivations in reality. There is causality, but that is not a "why" as there is no motivations.

 

How something works is what science is about because "why" requires a motivation (a human construct) and as science want to remove any subjective influence so as to avoid subjective interference of the description of reality.

 

Why does a rock roll down a hill? Because I pushed it.

 

I had the desire (motivation) to push it.

 

Science would ask: How does it roll down the hill (gravity, friction, kinetic and potential energy, etc). None of those have a motivation.