Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Hi Michael. Since I have given some of your threads a lot of my attention, would you mind returning the favor, as I think it is related to your thoughts.

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...ntal-laws.html

Arkain 101,
I couldn't get much "traction" on the issues you raised in your linked thread but will reply there. As for this thread, I honestly don't understand how my post 245 above incurred an infraction resulting in suspension. For instance, the leap from subjective perception to having enough faith in our collective senses to assert that there is an "objective cosmos" independent of our senses/perceptions is, for me truly a collective scientific "leap of faith" (which I embrace as knowing based on perception) but it is still an unresolved issue in this forum.
Michael

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As for this thread, I honestly don't understand how my post 245 above incurred an infraction resulting in suspension.

As a mere member of the site, I would suspect you were suspended for repeated trolling. Do you understand the term? It means that you have posed an argument that has already been repeatedly shot down for a variety of reasons. But despite this, you simply repeat it ad nausiam. Suspended? I think they've been very lenient in not banning you long ago.

So think hard on this. Listen to the replies you get and don't discard them just because they don't agree with you. Engage with the criticisms of what you have said, and answer them. Don't just repeat your claim. We've heard it more than enough times already. And if you can't grasp the maths, you are not in a position to gain say the conclusions drawn from it.

A little homily might help: If you've got nothing new to say, don't say it.

Of course,that's just my opinion, but I'd suggest you give it careful consideration...

Oh, and by the way, this thread is supposed to be about the assertion of an absolute now. Not gravity bending space. That thread was closed for precisely the reason I've given above.

P.S. It may not seem so, but these comments are kindly meant. I don't want to see you banned. I think you've come a long way from the way you behaved when you first came to the site. It would be a pity if that was wasted...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by arkain101

smoking? (I'll take that as a joke)
I was asking ...For example; isn't the math and visualization different depending on the geometry and dimensions used to represent or analyze reality?...

Yes, it was a joke.
But only a little one.

Your question is a valid one. And any number of philosophers, teenagers and other folks have tried to argue that very point. Generally speaking, none of them are familiar with the way that geometry and dimensions are used to represent reality.

So, it always boils down to this: find a problem that can be represented by two different geometries, and do the physics (correctly!) in each. You will get the same answer. One may be easy and the other frightfully difficult. But if you do the math with integrity, you get the same or similar answers. (Some choices of geometry will incur larger error factors.)

Given a problem with an object traveling at a speed of 100 MPH, Newton and Einstein will give you the same answers. But Newton will give it in 5 minutes; Einstein will take 5 days.

And basically, this is what underlies the philosophy of physics. The math is showing us reality, not just some specific viewpoint of reality. Because the math, however modeled, whatever base arithmetic we use, however many "degrees" we define to be in a "circle", -- the math gives us consistent and useful answers, as long as we don't get sloppy.

Different maths can indeed open up new insights for us. But insights into the same reality. Differential equations can allow us to describe some problems that cannot be tackled with any amount of algebraic equations. Polar coordinates make some geometrical problems vastly easy -- others, almost head-breakingly hard. But they don't represent a different "reality". 11+7 is still 18 whether you use decimal, octal or ancient greek hexadecimal notation.