Our planet is among the first of many, many Earths.

[tar]

Strange,

 

 

"You have nothing. (Except a "philosophy".)"

 

I have the findings of all the explorers and scientists and thinkers and philosophers, that came before me, just like you have. I can read and I can watch videos and I can listen to lectures, same as anybody else.

 

Regards, TAR

 

From Wiki article on Lambda CDM model.

 

"It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe.​"

 

Do you figure, the model of the universe held by the brightest scientific minds in 1980 were better than or worse than the model held today?

 

What would you predict would be the comparison of the model held in 2020 compared to the model held today?

Edited November 23, 2015 by tar

[Ophiolite]

@Tar,

Your post #199 has been answered effectively by Strange in post #200. I have one additional comment. You said:

You, are of the opinion that the proper course of action is to submit to the judgement of the experts because they have already thought these things through and know the answers. That I have no weight to fight with the big dogs

 

The first sentence is the exact opposite of what I said. I stated very clearly (post #199) that "My solution on the other forum is this: I shall study the topic in sufficient depth to either understand why I am in error, or to be able to explain why they are in error."

 

In most instances I shall provisionally accept (not "submit to") the views of the experts. They have studied their specialties for years.. The odds are that were I to do the same I should arrive at the same conclusion. I have no desire to invest my time to acquire knowledge that others have already acquired for me. For my current issue, I think I can - with minimal study - bring myself to a point where I shall either recognise my error, or be able to convincingly demonstrate theirs.

 

I shan't be putting you on ignore, but I see no point in furthering this particular discussion. Thank you.

[tar]

yeah there is no point

my best examples pass with no acknowledgement

 

I will have to work on a better example, where you are to point to the distant item you see, and point in the direction where the item currently is, and be pointing in two directions.

[Strange]

Do you figure, the model of the universe held by the brightest scientific minds in 1980 were better than or worse than the model held today?

 

What would you predict would be the comparison of the model held in 2020 compared to the model held today?

 

Our models now are better than models in the past (if they weren't they wouldn't be the current models). And they will continue to be refined in future as we improve our understanding and gather more data.

 

Why is this question even relevant?

my best examples pass with no acknowledgement

 

I don't think any of your examples have been unacknowledged. But as they are all the same thing and just highlight your lack of understanding, it gets a bit tedious trying to explain the same thing over and over. To someone who is unwilling to listen.

 

I will have to work on a better example, where you are to point to the distant item you see, and point in the direction where the item currently is, and be pointing in two directions.

 

Gosh. I bet no one has ever thought of that before. Like people firing a gun. Or NASA planning space missions.

[tar]

Strange,

 

The "leading" of an aircraft with your aim, in order to intersect its flight with your round does not address my issue. It is not a good example. In the firing of a gun you will see the bullet on its whole flight. And you will see the plane. You just aim where the plane is heading.

 

My issue is that there are two real things going on, at vast distances that are true. One which is true by virtue of the photons and gravity and magnetic impulses from the event hitting you now, and false, by virtue of the event having have happened some time in the past, and the item under consideration has moved on to another position, or evolved or taken its next step in growth or decay, well out of our view and reach and happening, thusly only in our imagination, not in anyway that we can sense...til later when we can verify our figuring. When we are controlling the rover 14 minutes away, we have to know its doing something 14 minutes before the action is reported, and we have no way to know what this is, but in retrospect. Even if we had an observer sitting right there on Mars, her report would be 14 minutes delayed. In your lead the moving object example, what point do you aim at? The point a foot ahead of where you see the object, or a point a foot ahead of where the object is? The two are not the same and you keep telling me they are, based on the fact that close stuff is close enough so that the light travel time will not make that much difference, and it is the same for the distance between the bullet and the gun and the eye and the plane, so things work out pretty well. In the case of the mars rover, you have to write a program for the thing to act a certain way when it senses certain things without your involvement, because your command would come 28 minutes late.

 

I am not saying we cannot think of these things. I am saying we don't think of the implications of the situation in terms of there being two instances of a thing which there is, in reality, only one instance of.

 

Regards, TAR

perhaps I am saying that an event, viewed at a great distance, is not happening in the past, but is happening now, and is just a really really big event​

and any point in space, such as an observer, is sitting at the intersection of all the streams of bullets every other position in the universe is firing

what complicates that example is it is not enough to imagine a stream...you have to imagine that each position, sends out a stream in all directions at once...a wavefront in all directions

[Strange]

I am saying we don't think of the implications of the situation in terms of there being two instances of a thing which there is, in reality, only one instance of.

 

How do you know that? As you don't have a clue what the models are, how they are derived or how they are tested, you can't possibly know what is or is not taken into account.

 

Just because you are completely confused by your misunderstandings, doesn't mean that everyone else is equally confused.

 

 

perhaps I am saying that an event, viewed at a great distance, is not happening in the past, but is happening now, and is just a really really big event​

 

No, it is two different events: the thing happening and the thing being perceived. (And, of course, if it perceived by N observers, then it is N+1 events.)

 

 

what complicates that example is it is not enough to imagine a stream...you have to imagine that each position, sends out a stream in all directions at once...a wavefront in all directions

 

Perhaps one reason you are so confused by this is because you do not have access to any sort of formalism to help you rationalise any of these things.

[tar]

Strange,

 

Perhaps that is it. I don't know if the formalism is taking into account what I want taken into account.

 

For instance you say

"No, it is two different events: the thing happening and the thing being perceived. (And, of course, if it perceived by N observers, then it is N+1 events.)"

 

 

I don't for instance agree with that statement. The event is not finished happening until all photons and waves from it are absorbed to the point where nobody, anywhere can see it or feel it, in real time.

 

There is not formalism for this thought, because nobody but me seems to be thinking it. Why would I be interested in a formalism that does not take everything into account?

 

If people were taking it into account it would exist in the formalism. If it is not in the formalism, then it is either not there because it does not fit reality, or it is not there because it does not fit the formalism.

 

 

The model, the formalism will change as required. The reality will always be true.

 

Regards, TAR

it is one event

there is only one instance of a particular supernova, that has been, is being and will be witnessed by various N points

there is, for instance most likely a supernova happening now, that when we look in that direction we do not see it

does the formalism say that that super nova is true, or false?

are Earthlike planets that exist but we have not seen them yet because the light and gravity from them has not reached us yet, considered past events or future events, in the formalism?

if the rover falls into a hole it only does it once

us seeing it does not mean it fell in again

Edited November 23, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

The event is not finished happening until all photons and waves from it are absorbed to the point where nobody, anywhere can see it or feel it, in real time.

 

That is a different (non-standard) definition of event.

 

There is not formalism for this thought, because nobody but me seems to be thinking it.

 

How do you know that? It seems very unlikely.

 

Why would I be interested in a formalism that does not take everything into account?

 

You won't know if it takes everything into account until you are open minded enough to learn about it. You seem to be saying: "I have this idea that obviously no one else has thought of so the models must be wrong."

 

If people were taking it into account it would exist in the formalism.

 

And you know what. It does.

[tar]

strange,

 

Good.

 

regards, TAR

Still doesn't answer the question of the OP.

 

From which vantage point are we understanding that the Earth is among the first of many many Earths?

[Strange]

From which vantage point are we understanding that the Earth is among the first of many many Earths?

 

From what exists now. Not from what we can see now. OK?

[tar]

and actually it would be difficult for a formalism to take into account everything, because most of it is out of our reach...unless the formalism admits that most of it is out of our reach and thus not included in the calculation

[Strange]

No one claims that any model includes everything.

[tar]

Strange,

 

Well not ok, because you are just saying that.

 

We have 0 information about what is happening now. We can't go by that alone. Everything more than a moment away has already happened, and its different in the equation depending on whether it is a plank distance away or a meter or a mile or a million miles or a light minute or an hour. If the equation talks about an item, an N and does not include its distance from the observer and which clock you are going by, the equation is going to have some potential error built in.

maybe this is why people say you can not tell both the position and the momentum of a particle. we can not get right there with a measurement that takes no time to make

while my question has to do with very huge distances, the same reality exists when talking about two molecules on either corner of grain of salt

that human beings are of a certain size, with certain brain cells and synapse that take some time to sense and record and playback and compare and such, allows a certain window to be called now, as opposed to before or after. Maybe that is what a moment is. A whole cycle of sense, store, compare.

 

Tiny stuff happens way too fast and are done and on to the next, before the light and pulses reach the equipment. Huge stuff happens and you don't know for a million years.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 23, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

We have 0 information about what is happening now.

 

That is just ridiculous. Open your eyes: look around you.

 

maybe this is why people say you can not tell both the position and the momentum of a particle. we can not get right there with a measurement that takes no time to make

 

No, that is not the reason. (That would be an example of the measurement problem, a completely different thing.)

[tar]

Strange,

 

Well again, I am going by my insight. One that you perhaps have had and based others on, that I have not gotten to yet

But I say 0 because 100% of the universe is more than a Planck's distance away from your eyeball, and your eyeball is quite a long signal path away from the areas in your brain that will process, over time the information in the photons that are hitting your eye. Any way you look at it, (pardon the accidental pun,) what you are adding to your model of the world, when you look at something, are things that have already happened. So none of what you see is what is currently going on. It just gets further removed as you go out. The larger your model, the more imaginary in nature it becomes, and the less packed with observable truths about what the universe is currently doing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Yes, of course. You are right. The universe just turned to chocolate but we just haven't realised it yet. Wilfully ignorant and irrational. Bye.

[tar]

Strange,

 

I am not suggesting the entire universe just did something we wouldn't know about. If the entire universe would turn to chocolate, we would be chocolate here. What I am saying is that if its not expanding around here, why would you think that is an indication that it is expanding everywhere. If the local galaxies are gravitationally bound to each other then according to the elegant notion of learning what the universe is doing by watching the progression through time of what it was doing long ago, sort of long ago recently and real recently, and figuring that now everything is doing what things are doing real recently around here, then every galaxy should be hanging close to its neighbors, gravitationally bound to them, because that is what a 13.8 billion year universe should look like, using the elegant notion.

 

Can't go by what you see, you have to go by what you figure should be the case based on the progression through time of how the universe looked.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 23, 2015 by tar

[Ophiolite]

The larger your model, the more imaginary in nature it becomes, and the less packed with observable truths about what the universe is currently doing.

Have you heard of trends? One that seems doomed never to become widespread is careful thought.

[tar]

Well OK Ophiolite, I am done. Strange is done with me. You are done with me. You both are calling me willfully ignorant. I have said my piece. I appreciate the talk. Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

[Ophiolite]

Well OK Ophiolite, I am done. Strange is done with me. You are done with me. You both are calling me willfully ignorant. I have said my piece. I appreciate the talk. Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

I won't speak for Strange, but that is an accurate description of my position. It is based entirely on your posts here. You have spent your time repeating your assertions in a variety of different ways, always with a tone that declares you are correct, without showing any willingness to learn why you are wrong. I think willfully ignorant is a good descriptor of that approach.

[tar]

got it