"Spooky action at a distance" What did he mean?

I said quantity of discourse, not quality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have not stated that the notion that it is meteoritic is utter nonsense - only that those who have studied it scientifically, albeit not in as much detail as one would ideally like, and relying on 3rd-party testimony, do not share the view that it is likely to be a meteorite.

So what? They are using their experience, their knowledge in the field of geology, to interpret the testimony of those that have seen it - both new and ancient.

Of course we can only deal in probability! And their skepticism is qualified through their experience and their ability to interpret descriptions of rocks - the same way that a doctor can provide the most likely diagnosis of an ailment over the phone, without seeing the patient and their condition.
Are they certain in their assessment? No - and neither I nor they have ever said otherwise. They merely say that the meteoritic origin theory is not the most likely. In their opinion. Which is based on experience of interpreting the descriptions of rocks. As opposed to the claim of those who rely solely on the description of origin from hundreds of years past.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No - it's merely unadulterated drivel with no basis in science whatsoever - not worthy of even the label of psuedoscience.
As for being spooky - something has to actually exist before it can be considered spooky. What you have posted is just wishful thinking, unsupported by anything other than your own irrationality and lack of critical thought.

We don't "assume the above to be founded".
There is no basis at all for what you have assumed - thus the conclusion is as similarly unfounded - and that is even before exploring the link from the assumption, to the example, to the conclusion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you believe that there is no basis for the following to be considered valid?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please explain why you consider the obvious to be not so obvious?
"that for something to exist it must have time to exist in"
that when t=delta 0, distance must also = 0

Just saying it is drivel is not good enough and indicates that you have absolutely no idea of what you are attempting to destroy the credibility of.
The duration of a single zero point on a time line must be zero for a continuum of movement to be present. ( No absolute rest, nor "Planck length rest") therefore at any given zero point selected the universe does not exist in 4 dimensions.
If you think it is unadulterated drivel as you have stated then I challenge you or any member to start a thread in the pseudo science fora for all of us to work it out...in other words support your claim that it is drivel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I apologize and stand corrected. thanks.

No, what you stated in response to my "most probably a meteorite" which was qualified with the references to ancient texts written by scientifically illiterate writers whom considered the artifact of their worship to have fallen from the sky ...(Rocks that fall from the sky are what typically?) was "Utter nonsense".
Historically there were other similar stones housed or stored in the Kaaba which predates the arrival of the prophet. It seems the early persons of the region may have had a habit of collecting stones that fell out of the sky...(*?) and considered them to have spiritual significance.

and deferred to an opinion that is founded equally on evidence that is non-scientific and from sources that are essentially illiterate in the sciences.

As to what exactly the "stone " is, is open to only speculation until it is properly assessed.

So your claim of "utter nonsense" is simply indicative of your hostility towards me and anything I may post that threatens your pseudo scientific comfort zone and vain glorious belief in your own intellectual superiority.

You also failed to capitalize on post #54 which indicates you jumped in with out knowing the general context of my post.

And as you have proved in the past "context" or "contextual integrity" is an issue you have when delivering an argument.

You may recall the discussion we had about 0.999... being calculated to equal 1 was essentially about the failure to maintain contextual integrity? And why it is deemed to be a determined outcome due to systemic use of limits and not a calculated one.

Essentially your retort is as much nonsense as you claim my post to be...

However there are somethings you have stated that have value and I thank you for them even if they were unintended to be beneficial.

 

To correct you: the "utter nonsense" is in response to you claiming that "We are only left with..." - i.e. the dismissing of scrutiny of the descriptions by those educated in such things.

Or just had a habit of collecting odd-looking stones. But I fail to see the relevance with regard the rock under discussion. The point stands that you have arbitrarily dismissed skepticism as unqualified when it is patently qualified.

How is it non-scientific? Do the descriptions not exist? Does the experience of geologists not count for anything in your eyes.
Whether the sources are "essentially illiterate in the sciences" or not is irrelevant - you are relying on them exclusively, with no other support whatsoever, whereas the skepticism from geologists comes from their experience and both ancient and new observations and writings of the stone.

And this is where "education" comes in, in providing a reasoned idea as to type of rock, origin etc, in the absence of any proper assessment. You dismiss this merely because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.

I will claim things to be utter nonsense where and when I see it. If you don't like me declaring it upon reading your claims, there's a simple solution - support them, and don't dismiss other peoples' skepticism seemingly without reason other than it doesn't fit your agenda.

I have read the thread, QQ, including your post #54. Do you expect me to respond to all your claims I have issue with? All your unsupported assertions? All your "theories" and notions? And you expect me to respond to a post that you started with "A story, (treat it as fiction if you like)" and take its contents seriously?

??? You mean the thread where you merely asserted such and never either proved it to be true nor had it supported by actual mathematicians???

Further, how does one example (even if I accept it as valid, which it isn't) constitute "an issue you have when delivering an argument"?
How does your criticism bear any resemblance to this thread, or the points I have raised - other than as a pathetic attempt to deflect by crying foul through "oh no, he lacks context!" - when no such lack has been demonstrated.

Yes, geologists providing actual assessment based on available evidence from ancient texts and modern observation is as much nonsense as you saying that the ancient book is "almost certainly" true.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Everything I write is intended to be beneficial.
The trick would be in working out who it is intended for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Correct.
Time does not affect distance (or at least there is no reasonable justification for me to accept that it does).
First... If the moon is c.384k km from Earth at one moment, and still at c.384k km from Earth at the next, it is a good bet that it will be at c.384k km during the intervening period, whether you "stop time" (i.e. delta-t = 0) or not.

Second, your two claims of things that are "obvious" are incompatible:
If something can not exist if there is no time to exist in then there is nothing at all to make "distance" a meaningful concept.

Apologies, I thought you would recall the discussions we have previously had on this nonsense. It seems not.
So let me refresh:
Let's start with the notion that "if there is no time there is no existence". I don't necessarily dispute this - as if one considers time an inherent property of a physical system then it is self-evident. But I would question whether it is more that there is no meaningful existence. It might still be the case that at delta-t = 0 the physical structure of the universe exists, but there is merely no motion. Certainly a discussion for philosophy rather than pseudoscience, though.
But it is the second of your points that I have issue with here. You say that when delta-t=0 then distance must also = 0.
If there is no existence then, as said, the notion of distance is meaningless, and it is simply incorrect to say that distance = 0.
If there is existence (as per the suggestion above) then there is nothing to suggest that the physical structure retains the meaningful property of distance, which is a fundamental property of space, not time (although given the two are seemingly entwined, it is affected by such matters as speed, etc, giving rise to relativistic effects).

I would see it more a matter of philosophy, not pseudoscience. But hopefully the above shows quite clearly the incompatability of your notions.

 

ok regarding context.
The following posting will in part, be focused on just this issue:

What I was essentially saying ( in context ) was that I tend to believe the religious text more so than I would the geologists due to the fact that the stones have never been properly assessed using the scientific method.

Perhaps the fact that I am entitled to hold an opinion that your paranoia makes you feel is offensive to science upsets you? That you hold the opinion that I am some how anti-science and it is your duty to set me right?

Perhaps it is a way of writing that is upsetting you most?

This is not a white paper but merely a discussion...and nothing written here is going to mean anything beyond merely discussion.

If you wish to discuss writing a paper for peer review then you will need to start another thread with that intent clearly expressed.

When I stated that: "All we are left with is" I referred to the writings of uneducated and "scientifically innocent" persons who indicated with out any reason to be manipulative that the stone fell out of the sky at a time when the world was considered flat and full of God s and God like beings.
The context of the writings is all important.
As regards to the pseudo scientific assessment I ascertained that it was premised in a prejudiced manner that the rock must have been terrestrial and conform to known "rocks" therefore preventing the finding of the geologists from being "left open" due to their own "necessary" ignorance. The qualifiers being subsequently ignored by yourself and granted less credit than they deserve.
Note:

The qualifiers highlighted in bold.
Suggests? Virtually rules out? Probably?
They are not talking about anything that is conclusive.

I always look at the limitations of the testimony provided and base an opinion/belief with those limitations in mind.


They and no one else actually have any idea of what the rock is and they are only speculating based on knowns (which are very few) and not unknowns therefore it is given the credibility it deserves. Which is that it is purely qualified speculation that does not resolve the issue.

Now when considering the fact that the geologists DO NOT know what the rock is nor where it originates from "we are left with" only the testimony recounted in various religious texts that date back thousands of years well before mankind had a basic grasp of science that would have tempered his superstitious nature.
basically the reasoning is as follows:
A rock that is found on the ground would be considered like all other rocks and not hold any particular religious value. Where as a rock that "falls out of the sky" to a superstitious person would.
Therefore the testimony that the rock was most probably a meteorite when applying our contemporary understanding is MOST LIKELY in my opinion when judging between the two presented inconclusive explanations.

For you to then consider what I wrote as being"Utter Nonsense" is simply suggestive of a poster who's intent is not to discuss the merits of an argument but to, regardless of merit, attempt to discredit and disparage, flame and other wise denigrate the reasonable position of another.

I shall quote again what I originally

Possibly if we replace the word "unqualified" to "inconclusive" your need to fight semantic wars would be requited.

I used the word "unqualified " because the geologist have no "first hand" data to work with and are relying on 2nd and 3rd party observations. Even photographic evidence is apparently heavily restricted. Therefore their assessment is merely an educated guess.
They have not indicated why they feel the stone IS NOT a meteorite ( except to state that it is not nickel-iron) and why their assessment rules out those unknowns.

 

This is seriously indicative of your anti-science paranoia.
Of course I treat the geologists findings seriously and with respect. Why do you feel other wise?

As I explained to your blinkered eyes, the findings of the geologists are inconclusive. The testimony of the religious text indicates the rocks are of extraterrestrial origin. In fact providing early testimony of eye witness observations of meteorites landing. ( they refer to them as falling from heaven, a gift of the Gods, we later, with the benefit of education, refer to them as meteorites)
I quote a qualifier from my original post (context):
"All references regardless are to be considered scientifically dubious given the religious context."


Not unlike early descriptions of a solar eclipse although couched in the superstition of the time, still can be understood for what it was - a solar eclipse by more contemporary understandings.

 

Superficially you are correct however at any given zero point in time the distance is zero. The logic is inescapable...

Correct but you need to extend your logic to include the fact that if a moment of "distance meaninglessness" exists for zero duration then it's impact exists for zero duration as well.. ( it never happened per see yet is logically valid regardless)

it is a discussion for both philosophy and physics..

The philosophical notion of ex-nhilo typically refers to an event occurring after nothingness, ie. from nothing came something" - past to present to future... I dispute this notion by suggesting that there was no before something existed that the universe comes from nothing simultaneously with being nothing always in the present moment. Thus is an event horizon of time where by time is created from nothing in the present moment.
I would reconsider ex-nhilo to mean:
"From nothing comes something" directly referring to the present tense and only the present tense.

Perhaps if you consider the delta t=0 diagram in the context of ex-nhilo you might make more sense of it.

There is the convergence of two scientific streams of thought to consider.
In Einstein/Minkowsky space time, time and distance are indeed intrinsically locked ( not just linked. )
Distance is totally dependent on time and time is totally dependent on distance.
Matter can not exist in a state of absolute rest. ( this I actually fully agree with science about )

So we have the very strong scientific and logical proposition that absolute rest is not possible in a pre-existing universe.

We also have the burden of the logic presented by delta t=0 then distance=0 to deal with and it will not go away until it is.

To suggest that the universes matter can somehow exist with out any movement is akin to believing in ghosts or some sort of imaginary hologram. , that is at absolute rest.

The only "thing" for want of a better word that is at absolute rest is "nothing" and because it is "nothing" it can not be observed to be at rest.

You may see a glimmer of understanding Zeno of Elea's extraordinary astute notion that no motion is possible when applying infinite reduction and arriving at a zero point in the time line.

If you are also aware of the human nature of ego, you can understand why many years later Plato and ilk considered his thoughts as "Utter nonsense" and still do even today because science is unable to deal with natural paradox that affords this universe it's existence.

Zeno's insight into time is utterly amazing for someone of his or any time.

This diagram and assertion associated is directly related to Zeno's insight which was lost to hubris and egoistically derived intellectual superiority which prevented later scientists from fully appreciating Zeno's contribution. IMO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The statement above would predict quantum entanglement and it would also predict the universal constancy of gravitational attraction, inertia, the capacity for uniform cosmic metric expansion and essentially the underlying cohesion, order and entanglement this universe appears to exhibit. Both organic and non organic.
It would also predict that the "true" laws of physics must apply universally.
and what is more, there is nothing spooky about it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hee hee reminds me of the animated movie "Kung Fu Panda" that splendidly IMO encapsulates both paradoxical issues of belief (ego) and truth (reality) in one short scene shown below.




The issue of nothingness, nirvana, void etc has been well known in serious Buddhist circles for ages and goes way back to even about 8000 BC with the early forms of Brahma-ism and Yogic teachings. ( too lazy to cite links and text most of which are is not online any how...)
The notion that the universe is an illusion of ego is not new.

Delta t=0 then distance = o ultimately means that the universe is temporal, that it exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. ( a paradox)

 

The inescapable logic is that if nothing exists then distance is meaningless. To claim that distance is zero when nothing exists is just as meaningful as saying that distance is infinite, or 1, or apples.

And since your scenario is of a delta-t=0, for that duration distance is meaningless. At all other durations of delta t there is meaning to distance, and it is non-zero (unless you think the moon is zero distance from you?).ysics..

Nope, it's still flawed for the reasons mentioned. Nothing you have provided shows any logic that leads to such a conclusion: if nothing exists - even for delta-t = 0, distance does not exist as a concept - even for delta-t = 0. You are special pleading for the continued meaningfulness of distance when nothing exists, and not only that but pleading for all distance to be zero.
Get over the first hurdle - by showing how distance, or indeed how anything, has meaning if nothing exists - and then tackle the second.

It does go away - once you accept your own assumption that if at delta t=0 nothing exists then distance is not zero but is not anything at all.
There is a difference between non-existence of everything and merely saying that something specific does not exist within a universe where it is possible that it does exist. If the universe itself does not, as you claim at delta-t=0, exist - then it makes any claim of something specific = 0 to be meaningless.

Not at all - it is more akin to the concept of p-zombies: not something that is actually believed to exist but a useful philosophical tool.

And I'll repeat again, if there is "nothing" then there is no "distance". This does not mean that distance = 0, as this relies on distance remaining as concept. If there is "nothing" it means that distance as a concept also does not exist. Thus to claim distance = 0 is meaningless.

Not really - it's just a perspective on a fairly simple mathematical model. Since the arrow still hits its target - delta-t = 0 could also be said to be a meaningless concept in the context of existence, which relies on as you yourself have said the passage of time.
But you continue to use concepts that must necessarily exist to have meaning, and thus which require time to have meaning, and apply them to situations when those concepts, by your own admission, can not exist. Yet you still insist on retaining meaning in those concepts as applied to moments (delta-t=0) when they can not have such.

Nothing in that statement above predicts anything of what you mention - or at least you have certainly not shown it to.
You have merely arrived at a conclusion that is logically incompatible with the 2 assumptions you began with, and then tacked some additional unsupported claims on the end - a non sequituur given that you haven't explained how the claims stem from your albeit fallacious conclusion.

 

If you don't mind me saying so you are being rather silly with the above

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have yet again demonstrated your problem with contextual integrity.

If we were discussing the value of distance from a perspective of absolute nothingness I would agree with you and say for semantic/philosophical reasons that distance as a concept is meaningless.

However guess what?

We aren't talking from a perspective of absolute nothingness.. we are talking from a perspective of a pre-existing universe that does indeed have distance meaning full if and only if delta t has the potential to be >0. (which it obviously has)
To say to a person in a pre-existing 4 d universe that distance is zero, is meaningful to someone who is accustomed to having distance = >0.

To say the same thing to a person in a non-extent universe apart from being impossible is ridiculous as distance is yet to be defined in any way that is meaningful.
You have butchered the context and arrived at a silly outcome.

Delta t=0 implies automatically that Delta t can also be >0 unless other wise stated. Like wise if one claims distance=0 automatically implies the possibility that distance can be >o
However in a non-existent universe neither could be implied or even stated and well in case you haven't noticed, the universe does indeed exist even if only as a dimensional illusion. ( as likened to a standing "wave" on an event horizon)

Sorry but your retort sucks! You will have to try again...

If delta t= 0 then distance = 0
Starts from a perspective of delta t>0 = distance >0

 

It speaks volumes to your lack of seriousness in your endeavours, and your desire to latch on to anything that merely interests you and furthers whatever agenda you may have, that you would believe ancient texts rather than people who have expertise in identifying sources of rocks, whether that identification be from minute examination, or merely examination of the words of the ancient text coupled with more recent observations etc.

There is no paranoia, I merely find your approach of only applying and appealing to science when it suits you to be worthy of rebuttal.

You have an over-inflated sense of your ability to effect.

And that means that one can not hold it to scrutiny? That we must accept what you say as valid, as sound, and are not allowed to ask you to support your assertions?

Yes - and with those words you confirmed dismissal of the opinions of the scientific community, and now you are making assumptions as to the intent (or lack thereof) of the authors.

So you think that if the context of the writing is a world considered flat and full of Gods / God-like beings, that this makes "it fell out of the sky" more likely to mean a meteorite than anything else?

Ascertained through what means? What has led you to conclude that the geologists have prejudice as to where it comes from? Science couldn't care less whether it is a meteorite or native to our planet.

No, they're not. Noone has said they are - so thanks for the strawman.
Their conclusion is that on the basis of probability it is indeed not a meteorite - using the ancient texts and modern observations (albeit at arms length, so to speak).
Yet you claimed "most likely" that it was - on the basis of the face value of the words (being someone's opinion at that time) in the ancient texts.

And as mentioned above, it is your gross inability to be consistent in how you apply such methods - whether it be this or whether it be appealing to science - to support your position that, in my view, leads you to draw such notions and conclusions as you do.

Noone said it resolves the issue. But again, thanks for continuing the strawman.

You mean a superstitious nature that would seemingly be more likely to claim that things "fell from the sky" than actually try / be able to understand where it actually did come from???

As would a rock potentially thrown from a volcano.

Only if you choose to ignore the findings of geologists who have interpreted the observations of the rock.

As said, I'll call something as I see it.
As for discussing the merits of an argument, when yours has some it may be worth discussing. As it is you summarily dismiss the findings of geologists and instead prefer the conclusion that fits most with whatever agenda you have.

Well, if you do change the entire meaning of what you write, it may go some way to assuage issues I might have with it.
Like if someone says "No" when they actually mean "Yes".

A qualified assessment - qualified by their experience, their education etc. They don't claim 100% accuracy - they merely state their qualified opinion based on the information they have.

You seem to think that what I quoted is the entirety of the assessment into the origin of the stone?
I gave you the source of the quote, and that was just one assessment.

 

I claimed that this was my opinion yes... sure...
Do you think I am saying anything other than an opinion?
I have also explained at great length why I hold that opinion and as yet you have offered nothing that challenges me to change it. ( my opinion )
I repeat my earlier question (amended):

Do think I am entitled to have an opinion no matter how ridiculous you may think it to be?

 

well tell us all Sarkus your opinion, on where the stone originated from and whether or not it is a meteorite or not?

 

Do you know what a strawman is? It might be your opinion, but it was a response to nothing I had said - thus a strawman.

 

You are upset because I am not making a call to authority, especially the authority of your choosing.

Do you know what a "call to authority" means?

 

On the contrary - you are simply mixing contexts to arrive at a conclusion that is illogical.

Why would distance as a result of time?
The distance between one end of a metre-rule and the other end does not change with time, it would be the same at t=1 as it is at t=0.5, at t=0.25.
All the way to the delta-t=0.
The only way the distance would change is due to velocity (relativistically speaking).

But if, as you assume, at t=0 than nothing exists, then you can not have your cake and eat it and claim that the metre-rule still exists but now with length of 0.
Either the metre-rule exists (and, look, it still has distance of 1 metre), or nothing exists and "distance" becomes a meaningless concept.

 

I do know - and I am not calling on any authority in lieu of an actual argument. Do you think I have done so? Feel free to point it out. All I have done is point out that geologists dispute your "most likely" claim, and you have summarily dismissed their findings for no valid reason.

 

so you are saying that absolute rest is possible in this universe? or is it?
For the ruler at delta t=0 to exist it must be at absolute rest.
I can see I am discussing basic physics and logic with a person ill- equipped to discuss them... sorry Sarkus but you have just thrown out over 100 years of conventional physics.