A really big question

[Randyvine]

Isn't the big question, is how you are getting fucked?

Is this a complaint? Because this sounds like a complaint. So I ask you.
Is this a conplaint? It's okay if it is I just want to know. Maybe you're
having a bad day. Or does the content of the question really bug you?
Oh I know, the bar, you stop by the bar had a few that turned into to
many. And now you hate the thread. And that's okay amigo because I 
also have a slight grievance.

I wrote this one trying keep my heart in the right place and keep non
biased light hearted and hopefully interesting. I did worry about the
interesting but as usual the members I'm familiar with as well as others
have put that worry to rest. I took what was a silly thought that kept
recurring and laid it here at the risk of being ridiculed back to the fetal
position.

And in so many other venues I'm sure I'd be curled up sucking my thumb
in front of this keyboard right now. 

With that not happening my good member please I'm ready for any
criticism you may have. With that said I invite you. You have the floor
sir. Elaborate, because my complaint sites people who complain with
oneliners and an un necessary foul mouth.

You know very well you can make your own thread in opposition to this
one. You seemed to have already found the title. 

[chr0naut]

I beg to differ. No frame of reference is privileged – which means you can’t say it only appears longer (or shorter) just because that's how it appears to an observer in some given FoR.

If an object, for instance, were lensed and appeared distorted in your frame of reference, it doesn't imply that there is a privileged frame of reference anywhere.

But 'c' is assumed to be constant in all frames of reference, and the meter is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 of a second.

Therefore, in any frame of reference, a meter is still a meter, but if it appears different in length, one might well assume that the image is distorted, rather than the length being different in different reference frames.
 

No. We are considering general cases here.
 

Define a general case?

Surely every separate frame of reference experiences some difference from another? Much like Pauli exclusion ensures that particles and their states cannot superimpose within normal spacetime.

The underlying graph? There are no privileged frames of reference.

It was a hypothetical to attempt to explain the appearance of a particular type of visual distortion (which in most instances, we could never actually see). Such hypotheticals are frequently used to popularize concepts that are hard to comprehend otherwise (the 'rubber sheet' explanation of gravitation and orbital paths is just such a physical metaphor).

Obviously. It was a j-o-k-e. Don’t you have them in New Zealand?

To quote the poetry of Nobel Laureate, Robert Dylan:

"There are many here among us
Who feel life is but a joke.."
 

Not sure what you’re trying to say here, but since it isn’t strictly on topic I’ll let it rest. Philosophy clearly isn’t your cup of tea, though I remind you, with Mr Knopfler’s endorsement, that if

Philosophy is useless,
Theology is worse.

One might posit that one context of that song was about a certain amount of cynicism in regard to aspects of industrialization - the previous statements were in regard to that.

To complete that stanza:

History boils over, there's an economics freeze
Sociologists invent words that mean "industrial disease"
 

Only if you embrace string theory.
 

Dimensionality and hyperspaces touch on far more than just string theory.

And string theory has not produced any testable hypotheses, so, it's probably another 'epicycle' pursuit, as is, probably, the search for a simple sequence to non-Mersenne primes.

There's lots of open mysteries that we keep banging our heads against. LOL.

When you find an example of any type or style of human thought that does not manifest these features, let me know.

A bit disappointing, your reply – I was hoping for something less pedantic and more sophisticated. Ah well, courses for horses, as they don’t say but should.

We are talking about reasoning through things we currently don't know. I think it is prudent do so carefully and very systematically. The things we devise must have a robust foundation.

[quintessentone]

Is this a complaint? Because this sounds like a complaint. So I ask you.
Is this a conplaint? It's okay if it is I just want to know. Maybe you're
having a bad day. Or does the content of the question really bug you?
Oh I know, the bar, you stop by the bar had a few that turned into to
many. And now you hate the thread. And that's okay amigo because I 
also have a slight grievance.

I wrote this one trying keep my heart in the right place and keep non
biased light hearted and hopefully interesting. I did worry about the
interesting but as usual the members I'm familiar with as well as others
have put that worry to rest. I took what was a silly thought that kept
recurring and laid it here at the risk of being ridiculed back to the fetal
position.

And in so many other venues I'm sure I'd be curled up sucking my thumb
in front of this keyboard right now. 

With that not happening my good member please I'm ready for any
criticism you may have. With that said I invite you. You have the floor
sir. Elaborate, because my complaint sites people who complain with
oneliners and an un necessary foul mouth.

You know very well you can make your own thread in opposition to this
one. You seemed to have already found the title. 

I apologize if I offended you and 'yes' I suppose I was having a bad day and I should not have taken my frustrations about the many ways and means we are all getting fucked over in your fine thread.

[Randyvine]

I apologize if I offended you and 'yes' I suppose I was having a bad day and I should not have taken my frustrations about the many ways and means we are all getting fucked over in your fine thread.

I likely made to big a deal out of it for my own entertainment. In fact I
actually 100% agree with you. Your version of the question should be 
heard loud and clear more thsn any other. Just in the right venue partner.:)
Any way I can't accept your apology because I have the same hate you
do and could easily end up doing the same thing. So you don't owe me
an apology. But let those who see it notice you as the kind of person it
takes to apologize.

I'm just glad to know you better.

And thanks for contributing some great posts.

[Astyanax]

the meter is defined as the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 of a second.

Only to an observer stationary with respect to the measured object.
 

Define a general case?

One in which the observer is in motion with respect to the measured object.
 

"There are many here among us
Who feel life is but a joke.."

Indeed there are, and I am one of them.
 

We are talking about reasoning through things we currently don't know. I think it is prudent do so carefully and very systematically. The things we devise must have a robust foundation.

This would certainly be true if we were exchanging thoughts with some end in view other than merely entertaining one another on an internet forum for conspiracy theorists. Given the set and setting, I should have thought speculation was perfectly acceptable, even encouraged.

[worldstarcountry]

I marvel at how you people even get your head around this stuff. So much
of what I guess is better referred to as discovery rather than knowledge, doesn't
make any sense to simple observations. Seeing a sky full of stars at night as 
we do on Earth. Research says nope sorry that's an illusion. So it really is
all smoke and mirrors.

Well, I am only 40. I know for a fact a good chunk of these well knowledged critical thinkers have got about 15-20 years on me. A person grows a lot in that small time span once they have physically maturated and the chemicals quit doing their tampering. We grow intellectually, psychologically, spiritually, emotionally. That growth helps to develop perspective and understanding. I am only just getting started. It is a fun journey. Also you can tell based on the works cited, we read ALOT. For fun and the grow knowledge, not just for stats to place bets on sports. I highly respect and revere many of the minds in this community, especially right here in this discussion.

The limit is not the size but whether the mass inside the radius exceeds the threshold.

So the larger an object gets, the lower its average density needs to become a singularity.

So there is no known maximum size.

But there are limits on how much mass can be packed into a given size...

The universe expands, meaning the density is too low on large scales for that to happen.

Ha, your making me think about all those little factoids I read from my interest in space in third grade I read in Isaac Asimov for kids. I was always in awe of statements about a teaspoon of neutron star weighing the same as ten thousand dump trucks. Some things are even denser than that! Now I am wondering, what  is going on in that little teaspoon, if I could just shrink down a tiny vessel and explore that space, how much space will there actually be vs the occupancy of that density with matter?

I am really enjoying this discussion. So many perspectives and science has been cited. I do not even understand how to add to this conversation. But I will note an observation. Based on all the studies cited, philosophers and physicists, it feels ( a feeling) to me like when one question on the nature of reality or how forces of nature operate is finally answered through measurements or observations of theories confirmed or however these processes go about, it actually multiplies and compounds the number of new questions generated. It almost registers as a glitch to my observation. When science first moved past Atoms in observation, it generated more questions while barely really answering the question, whatever it was at the time. A new answer to an old question seems to generate significantly more questions down the line

It almost registers like an anomaly. Faith and science were taken together in antiquity, we think that science has explained much of the role faith played when used to explain things. But considering the number of new questions science seems to generate, perhaps faith should not just be riding shotgun. Perhaps faith and science are supposed to be piloting our lives together, one manages the instruments, the other accounts for the actual trajectory? I don't know, I thought I had a metaphor there but I guess not.

I think what is generally accepted is that the matter that composes our brains has limits to its ability to even perceive or measure the concepts and theories we are trying to tap into. Or perhaps only the filters built into the brain. Normally we cannot see an acoustic wave, but we can certainly FEEL and perceive it and measure it. Same goes for wind. If we can just rewire the visual cortex, maybe we can begin to see the physically unseeable? But would that actually enlighten our understanding of things,  or simply generate another exponentially higher round of questioning??

I am clearly out of my league here, so I will stop in a moment. I enjoy the feeling, the instinct, the intuition that also cannot be measured but most certainly plays a role in our lives. Maybe we just need to accept some things on faith together with the science we have and go with it. Maybe further understanding on some things just is not humanly possible. Not due to having yet to develop the machines, but because the biology of our vessels is simply not designed and never will be to grasp it. It  may defy all the rules and explanations we think we have so cleverly discovered, despite the number of unknowns each answer generates after.

Like an unquenching thirst or hunger that cannot be fulfilled?? I am starting to believe faith is part of that fulfillment. Some answers literally come out of nowhere in spite of years of searching and measuring, sometimes all of that is in vain and then suddenly, it just pops into someones head to look at this or that differently. I believe the more knowledgeable will have an example that confirms this because I am certain this phenomenon occurs in science all the time. When measuring just reaches its limits, and people are stumped for years, and then suddenly just has an idea to approach it from another side of the elephant which suddenly delivers an answer, but often with soooo many more questions.

Ultimately, what is even the goal, or perhaps intent is the better term, to have all the answers or to definitively know and be able to measurably demonstrate such abstract understandings of the nature of existence, the universe, everything? Is the intent to be satisfied in the knowing alone, or do deeper motives play a role? How do either affect the outcome? 

It is usually at a point like that where I just have to walk away and ground myself to the Earth. Literally, I walked away to step outside with my barefeet touching the Earth, my hands also placed there as well, head down in the sun, and just grounding myself physically while repeating words for me that clear the mind and refocus my thoughts. Whichever way this conversation is going, I often find stepping back and not dwelling on something can generate an answer in itself out of seemingly nowhere. And also allow the Earth to be our discharge point to refocus. What am I saying, I am the one late to the game, this is probably standard practice for everyone else. I have found it be a comfortable ritual for myself now.

The speakers time has expired, I yield the floor to the next speaker.

[worldstarcountry]

Maybe the biggest

A question I have pondered unknowing if others have ever done the same.
Does size matter? Time and space being relative, I assume by the movement
of celestial objects thru the vast void of empty space is what ultimately would
govern time by distance traversed. So it might seem silly but what if someone
or something were the same size as the universe? Or even bigger living outside
of the capture? What would happen to time if I were so big that I was everywhere
all at once? I would already be anywhere I could go in the universe so it would take
no time to get there.  And why does George Costanza keep popping in n out right now?

My previous reply was after I finished reading all 14 pages. This reply, is specifically to your op. I have pondered something along this line when I am in the woods and a tree ant falls on me. Most of the time it just keeps on walking and walking and walking from limb to core to limb. I have sat there and wondered, "does this guy feel like he is walking across my arm in about twelve seconds, or does he feel like he has been walking for  twenty minutes relative to his size and its relation to the distance. I see a few feet of distance, does he see a mile? How come he fell of the tree, but as soon as he touches my body he does not want to leave? Is it wondering why the ground is so warm (my skin)?

I once was a bit too intoxicated and watched a mosquito larvae in a bucket for like two hours. It looked like he was going to fly away soon out  of that metamorphosis and I did not want to miss it. Eventually the substances wore off and I got distracted back into the now and stepped away for a task that I do not recall. Only after like another few hours did I even remember that I was observing it earlier, so I went back. Too  late, the little rat bastard took off and left his shell  behind. And then my mind went towards the concept of an angelic spirit rising out of our dead corpses when we pass. While that thing was underwater, that was it universe and its entire understanding was within that realm. if it has any thoughts or philosophical concepts of its own in that macro universe of it, how does it explain what is about to happen?? Once it goes airborne, it is dead to everything in that universe that it once knew, and knew it. It left behind a husk, but it was not dead. What it discovered after must be quite the sensory overload no?? Or have we developed enough machines to know exactly what that creature with its own machine measurable electrical pulses within it could have been perceiving? To its co-habitators it is just dead matter left behind of what they used to know. 

I do not even look at living entities the same way I used to anymore, it is kind of hard to do so when I realize how little humanity even knows about itself, or its real history. Do certain sciences actually produce understanding, or simply an arrogance that fulfills a supremacist mindset? I just find some similarities to the evolution of water borne parasitic and non parasitic organisms and some peoples concept of life after death somewhat intriguing. Are the skeeters a midge fly's down there going "Dan man, cant wait to get my wings and become an angel in heaven." Then his conspiracy theory buddy is like "Woah woah dude, have you not heard?? The up there is full of giants and monsters and sickly creatures that want to devour you or make you life hell.  No way man you I hope when I die they just put me in another body right down here" 

We going to be flying around as energy in space, but what if that world is equally as vicious and predatory as all others? Yep, I did not ground myself for long enough. I got to go back outside now. cya!

[andy06shake]

Well, I am only 40. I know for a fact a good chunk of these well knowledged critical thinkers have got about 15-20 years on me. A person grows a lot in that small time span once they have physically maturated and the chemicals quit doing their tampering. We grow intellectually, psychologically, spiritually, emotionally. That growth helps to develop perspective and understanding. I am only just getting started. It is a fun journey. Also you can tell based on the works cited, we read ALOT. For fun and the grow knowledge, not just for stats to place bets on sports. I highly respect and revere many of the minds in this community, especially right here in this discussion.
Ha, your making me think about all those little factoids I read from my interest in space in third grade I read in Isaac Asimov for kids. I was always in awe of statements about a teaspoon of neutron star weighing the same as ten thousand dump trucks. Some things are even denser than that! Now I am wondering, what  is going on in that little teaspoon, if I could just shrink down a tiny vessel and explore that space, how much space will there actually be vs the occupancy of that density with matter?

I am really enjoying this discussion. So many perspectives and science has been cited. I do not even understand how to add to this conversation. But I will note an observation. Based on all the studies cited, philosophers and physicists, it feels ( a feeling) to me like when one question on the nature of reality or how forces of nature operate is finally answered through measurements or observations of theories confirmed or however these processes go about, it actually multiplies and compounds the number of new questions generated. It almost registers as a glitch to my observation. When science first moved past Atoms in observation, it generated more questions while barely really answering the question, whatever it was at the time. A new answer to an old question seems to generate significantly more questions down the line

It almost registers like an anomaly. Faith and science were taken together in antiquity, we think that science has explained much of the role faith played when used to explain things. But considering the number of new questions science seems to generate, perhaps faith should not just be riding shotgun. Perhaps faith and science are supposed to be piloting our lives together, one manages the instruments, the other accounts for the actual trajectory? I don't know, I thought I had a metaphor there but I guess not.

I think what is generally accepted is that the matter that composes our brains has limits to its ability to even perceive or measure the concepts and theories we are trying to tap into. Or perhaps only the filters built into the brain. Normally we cannot see an acoustic wave, but we can certainly FEEL and perceive it and measure it. Same goes for wind. If we can just rewire the visual cortex, maybe we can begin to see the physically unseeable? But would that actually enlighten our understanding of things,  or simply generate another exponentially higher round of questioning??

I am clearly out of my league here, so I will stop in a moment. I enjoy the feeling, the instinct, the intuition that also cannot be measured but most certainly plays a role in our lives. Maybe we just need to accept some things on faith together with the science we have and go with it. Maybe further understanding on some things just is not humanly possible. Not due to having yet to develop the machines, but because the biology of our vessels is simply not designed and never will be to grasp it. It  may defy all the rules and explanations we think we have so cleverly discovered, despite the number of unknowns each answer generates after.

Like an unquenching thirst or hunger that cannot be fulfilled?? I am starting to believe faith is part of that fulfillment. Some answers literally come out of nowhere in spite of years of searching and measuring, sometimes all of that is in vain and then suddenly, it just pops into someones head to look at this or that differently. I believe the more knowledgeable will have an example that confirms this because I am certain this phenomenon occurs in science all the time. When measuring just reaches its limits, and people are stumped for years, and then suddenly just has an idea to approach it from another side of the elephant which suddenly delivers an answer, but often with soooo many more questions.

Ultimately, what is even the goal, or perhaps intent is the better term, to have all the answers or to definitively know and be able to measurably demonstrate such abstract understandings of the nature of existence, the universe, everything? Is the intent to be satisfied in the knowing alone, or do deeper motives play a role? How do either affect the outcome? 

It is usually at a point like that where I just have to walk away and ground myself to the Earth. Literally, I walked away to step outside with my barefeet touching the Earth, my hands also placed there as well, head down in the sun, and just grounding myself physically while repeating words for me that clear the mind and refocus my thoughts. Whichever way this conversation is going, I often find stepping back and not dwelling on something can generate an answer in itself out of seemingly nowhere. And also allow the Earth to be our discharge point to refocus. What am I saying, I am the one late to the game, this is probably standard practice for everyone else. I have found it be a comfortable ritual for myself now.

The speakers time has expired, I yield the floor to the next speaker.

I don't think you're out of your league at all.

And if you are, well, the truth is we are all kind of in the same boat when it comes to comprehending reality.

In a strange way, you've touched on something that science and philosophers have noticed for centuries.

And that is that every answer seems to breed ten new questions.

But thats not a glitch, it's a feature of reality itself.
 
In a lot of ways faith and science are not enemies, just different tools.

Science tells us how things behave, while faith and intuition help us decide what to do with that knowledge.
 
Perhaps the goal was never to know everything.

Maybe the endless questioning is part of being human.

Certainly seems that way to me.

There may be limits to what our brains can grasp, but thats not because we are failing.

It's because we are finite beings trying to understand an infinite reality.