Yeah, that might be 100% bullshit. Israel is from the Hebrew "yisra'el", which means "he who wrestles with God". Ancient Egyptian and ancient Hebrew are afroasiatic languages, but the meanings of the gods you listed have nothing to do with the meaning of Israel. At best, there is just a similarity between the sounds because they share a common heritage far enough back.
It looks like it's just a case of someone making a pattern out of coincidence.
Yup. But it's still gold-plated bullshit that deserves an award... lol. It's not like the Jewish religion has not been tampered with (the texts are filled with textual clues to this tampering); Zionism and the modern State of Israel with their incestuous and duplicitous international relations reek of social engineering.
To be clear (because of the level of paranoia surrounding this topic), I don't believe "the Jews run the world" - they most certainly do not. Some wealthy and powerful Jews (in contrast to people who just happen to have been born in a Jewish household) act on behalf of someone else. They are front-men. Their job is to be the fall-guys, to take the blame when things go terribly wrong. That's why there are all these conspiracy theories about Jews running the world, in the first place. In exchange for being the fall guys, they have been elevated to positions of wealth and power.
I suspect that the "someone else" is an alignment of the Vatican and certain European royalty and perhaps some others (perhaps a few powerful Americans, the Japanese emperor, etc.) As such, it does not represent a truly monolithic conspiracy. This explains why the so-called major world events (e.g. WWI -> WWII -> 9/11 -> world government?) evince to some degree a telic aim yet, at the same time, show evidence of defections and back-stabbing (e.g. Copenhagen '09).
In the US, the Elites have decided to shift the role of boogey-man off the Jews and onto the Muslims. Muslims are the new boogey-men, the evil schemers who are plotting the downfall of our society and "our freedoms". It doesn't really matter who takes the fall as long as it's some group that the public can be easily made to hate (out of xenophobia) and as long as it's not the group that actually holds power (the Elite).
The real point is that the discerning individual peers through the layers of lies and bullshit and is not led around by silly narratives engineered by the Elites or anybody else in order to keep him preoccupied with non-issues. This makes life more challenging because the vast, vast majority of people are completely duped and become obsessed with the illusion as if it were reality. Look at electoral politics, for example. The Israel vs. Palestine issue is the exact same control pattern (divide & conquer) as the false Republican-vs-Democrat issue... it's just a pattern that is operating at a much higher level of sophistication and with more "global" appeal.
Clayton -
Clayton:I suspect that the "someone else" is an alignment of the Vatican and certain European royalty [...]
But do you think that the royals are the end of the line, or are the other people behind the scenes that are beyond them?
Some wealthy and powerful Jews (in contrast to people who just happen to have been born in a Jewish household) act on behalf of someone else. They are front-men. Their job is to be the fall-guys, to take the blame when things go terribly wrong. That's why there are all these conspiracy theories about Jews running the world, in the first place. In exchange for being the fall guys, they have been elevated to positions of wealth and power.
That's the thing with the Rothschilds. From reading Niall Ferguson's books on them, they worked for the royals and other elites in Europe, and that's how they gained their power.
However, with regard to letting Jews be the fall-people, the books explain that the Rothschild's wanted to bring their fellow Jews out of the ghetto. So, who knows? Perhaps they're willing to take the blame for the world's problems if it meant they would be allowed out of the ghettos.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Clayton: Basically a lot of the same stuff as Santos Bonacci but a slightly more organized presentation and fewer factual mistakes. He explains a lot of the ways that the Establishment suppresses dissent and maintains control. The most interesting (and fantastical) section is where he discusses how the world's major religions act as a kind of "binding" of the underlying astro-theological religions buried behind the veil. Even the esoteric traditions, he argues, are still bindings of the underlying astro-theology. When you strip the veil away completely, what you find are three sects of astrological worship - the Solar, the Lunar and the Planetary/stellar. He then goes on to claim that the Solar (Christian) tradition originates from worship of Ra, the Planetary/stellar (Judaism) in worship of El, and the Lunar (Islam) in worship of Isis. Combined, these form the name Is-Ra-El, that is, Israel. The State of Israel is the expression of the united agenda of all three of the pure astrotheological cults. I think that's about 99% bullshit, but it's very beautiful and fascinating bullshit! Nevertheless, he does have a great deal of good insights. As with all these kinds of vids, I find you have to sift through a lot of nonsense to find a few gems. Clayton -
Basically a lot of the same stuff as Santos Bonacci but a slightly more organized presentation and fewer factual mistakes.
He explains a lot of the ways that the Establishment suppresses dissent and maintains control.
The most interesting (and fantastical) section is where he discusses how the world's major religions act as a kind of "binding" of the underlying astro-theological religions buried behind the veil. Even the esoteric traditions, he argues, are still bindings of the underlying astro-theology.
When you strip the veil away completely, what you find are three sects of astrological worship - the Solar, the Lunar and the Planetary/stellar. He then goes on to claim that the Solar (Christian) tradition originates from worship of Ra, the Planetary/stellar (Judaism) in worship of El, and the Lunar (Islam) in worship of Isis. Combined, these form the name Is-Ra-El, that is, Israel. The State of Israel is the expression of the united agenda of all three of the pure astrotheological cults.
I think that's about 99% bullshit, but it's very beautiful and fascinating bullshit! Nevertheless, he does have a great deal of good insights. As with all these kinds of vids, I find you have to sift through a lot of nonsense to find a few gems.
I watched the first two hours. The etymology bits are usually and ironically where they fail, as well as in corporate logo symbolism. I mean, c'mon! The two C's in the Chanel logo are the initials of Coco Chanel.
I absolutely agree that these guys should be banned - one and all - from ever engaging in etymology. Every now and again they are right but it's mostly by accident. Bonacci says that the word "yes" comes from "Iesou/Yeshua" and this is also a name of the Sun (huh?)... and this is the reason we bob our head up and down... because the Sun rises and sets each day. *sigh
But, seriously, some of these guys have really deep insights that are absolutely worthwhile. They just get carried away and wander into speculative territory without clearing demarcating where they departed from the realm of the concrete into the speculative.
As for corporate logos, I think there is actually a ton of symbolism there. Chanel's logo is indeed the intials of the founder... but it is also a Vesica Piscis. It would strain credulity to suggest that Chanel did not know of the Vesica Piscis; so the arrangement of the initials in that way cannot be interpreted independently of the meaning of the Vesica Piscis. They meant for it to be so arranged.
In case you haven't looked at this before, here's a quick little video that gives you a nice tour of symbolism in a large number of corporate logos. Once you watch carefully, you will start to notice a lot more out in the real world... there is a lot of symbolism out there specifically intended for "those who have eyes to see".
I'm not saying that the logo symbolizes nothing more than the initial (it's a logo, after all). For the analysis of the meaning of the logo to correct, I think you have to look at how it came about. Like all brands, there needed to be logo; so, Coco probably hired a designer who created the logo. I don't think the logo was handed down to her from the Illuminati. However, this is not to say that logo has no occult meaning. For all we know, the designer attended the same mixers as the elites and had knowledge of the symbolism of that which is Illuminati (as Coco probably did as well since she was a designer for the elites).
So, perhaps the meaning of the logo might very well have been that of Vesica Piscis, but I think it would be a stretch that it was conscious effort by the Illuminati to transmit the message of "for him". I think the Versace logo is more occult.
EDIT: Yes, I seen similar videos on corporate logos.
I don't think the logo was handed down to her from the Illuminati. However, this is not to say that logo has no occult meaning. For all we know, the designer attended the same mixers as the elites and had knowledge of the symbolism of that which is Illuminati (as Coco probably did as well since she was a designer for the elites).
But I don't think the bolded part is what anyone is suggesting (though I can see how someone might come away with that imrpession). The way I explain the phenomenon is that it's like a gang-sign... you put it up because you're proud of your affiliation and you want others in your gang to know you're there, loud and proud, as well as to warn off potential rivals from other gangs. At the very least, it's a demonstration that the owners/directors are "with it" and "in the know".
Where this might make a difference is when Chanel (for example) is dealing with a bank or financial investment company (for example)... the higher-ups in the investment firm need to know whether a particular client is to be given the "usual treatment" or whether the back-room treatment is appropriate. The sign on the logo assists in helping them quickly ascertain that this company is different from the run-of-the-mill and requires the red carpet roll out. Instead of directing them to "index funds" because "you can't beat the market", private banking and private investment houses based out of Zurich or the City of London might be suggested instead. This is, after all, how we know the Masonic system of informal "back-scratching" works... and I believe the Masonic system was probably modeled on the already-existing culture of private business affairs between nobility... aka the old "handshake as good as a contract" system.
Clayton:At the very least, it's a demonstration that the owners/directors are "with it" and "in the know".
Totally agree.
Do you have a source for "Masonic system of informal 'back-scratching'"? I'd like to learn about it specifically.
But yeah, I can see it happening everywhere. I know that college frats do it; it's one of the main reasons for joining. Cops probably do it too, which might be why they search suspected gang members for tattoos. Hell, it's why gang members get tattoos. Sports fans do it. Also, this is why it's dangerous to wear antistate symbolism at, say, airports. Those TSA monitors will pick the symbolism and might randomly select you for a random pat down.
I think if you dig around on any anti-Masonic site you'll come across quotes from anti-Masonic politicians saying things like "We all know those dastardly Masons are under obligation to help each other and to make sure that they prefer other Masons in business" and so on. Also, I'm pretty sure I remember stumbling across written documentation from the Masons themselves to this effect - basically, that a Mason's first duty is to help his fellow Mason, that kind of thing. Not really that shocking, of course, the Masons being a fraternal order.
Sorry I don't have a link.
The Moon's orbit when traced out around the Sun:
Actually, it's more like this.
A lecture on plasma cosmology given at NASA:
The Big Bang is big bullshit.
We observe no boundary in the Universe. Metaphysically, a bounded Universe is less elegant than an unbounded Universe (once you assert a boundary, it gives rise to a new question, "Why this big rather than that big?" whereas if there is no boundary, there is no possibility to ask this question). This in itself doesn't prove that the Universe is unbounded, merely that it's good metaphysics to operate on the working assumption that the Universe is unbounded, absent compelling evidence to the contrary (and red-shift is not evidence to the contrary).
And what goes for spatial boundedness goes for temporal boundedness, as well. There is no reason to believe the Universe is finitely old and we observe no evidence that it is finitely old. In the absence of such evidence, the metaphysically simplest assumption is that the Universe has always existed. Then there is no question "why is there something rather than nothing?"... the something that we are interacting with (the Universe) simply is what is. It has always been there and always will be there.
Note that the Big Bang is very conveniently used by theologians to justify the idea of creation ex nihilo. Sure, God created the Universe a little longer ago than we originally thought but the fact is, He created it and we can see His fingerprints by looking at the "background radiation". Astrophysics is in big trouble and life is only going to continue to get harder for the dominant astrophysical paradigm.
Wait, by definition, has the universe always existed? That is, if for existance to... exist, then the universe has to exist as well?
@Daniel: Well, the thought-experiment underlying the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" hinges on the logical conceivability of nothing. But what, exactly, is it that we are claiming to conceive in conceiving "nothing"? I'm not so sure that we can actually meaningfully talk about conceiving of nothing. And without a "nothing" against which to contrast the existing "something" of the Universe, there is no puzzle.
Researching more into the plasma cosmology stuff... I think there is a lot of commonality between the Austrian vs. mainstream economics and the plasma vs. standard cosmology.
Let me quote this guy's critique:
Given that we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity, where's the problem that plasma cosmology is supposed to solve? ... If you don't know a lot about physics and astronomy, I can see where it looks like [plasma cosmologists] put together a well thought-out framework here, and that it's criminal for mainstream astronomers not to address this. The problem is, if you're a mainstream astronomer like me, and you try to figure out exactly what it is that their model here is doing, often you can't. What you've got, really, is a lot of nice sounding technical jargon that ultimately doesn't make clear what it is that they're really saying. In short, where's the math? If you're going to make quantitative predictions about where things are going, we need to know the equations that go along with your nice words. [Emphasis added]
If you don't know a lot about physics and astronomy, I can see where it looks like [plasma cosmologists] put together a well thought-out framework here, and that it's criminal for mainstream astronomers not to address this. The problem is, if you're a mainstream astronomer like me, and you try to figure out exactly what it is that their model here is doing, often you can't. What you've got, really, is a lot of nice sounding technical jargon that ultimately doesn't make clear what it is that they're really saying. In short, where's the math? If you're going to make quantitative predictions about where things are going, we need to know the equations that go along with your nice words. [Emphasis added]
He seems to think this is a knife-in-the-heart of plasma cosmology. No math, no theory. But he's gravely mistaken. Plasma cosmology doesn't dispute the standard equations - how can it, they're insanely accurate!
Rather, plasma cosmology raises a challenge to the imputed meaning behind standard astrophysics/cosmology. Specifically, plasma cosmology acknowledges that gravity was itself a mere "curve-fitting" force to begin with. Newton says of his own idea, "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it." Basically, if we could time-transport Newton to the present, he would denounce all of modern astrophysics as a bunch of unthinking and incompetent absurdity constructed by philosophical neophytes!
Newton's reservation goes back to causality. Gravity is not a causal theory. It just says "Planets move according to these rules and here's how these rules relate to the science of mechanics". That's it. Nothing more.
The mainstream scientist will recoil in horror at this assertion. "Then all of science is mere curve-fitting and is non-causal!" But this is false because it's a failure to understand that causality is a human concept. That is, it has meaning only within human language. When you hit a baseball with a baseball bat, we say "the bat caused the ball to fly out of the park" and it is perfectly understood what is meant. The theory of energy exchange in mechanical collisions is a causal theory. The same applies to all the rest of mechanics, statistical mechanics, electromagnetism, even quantum mechanics. But the motions of the heavens will only be causal if we figure out how to construct the rules governing their motions in terms of actual causal theory.
For example, collisions between heavenly bodies (comets or asteroids impacting planets, the Sun, etc.) can be exaplained with causal theory. That's because we know what it means, causally, for two bodies to collide. Cf the ball and bat. But we also know that our causal theory cannot explain all the phenomena of collisions between heavenly bodies... when we sent the Deep Impact probe to crash into a comet (Tempel I), we observed a massive incandescent phenomenon that completely shocked and surprised the mainstream astronomical community. There was this huge build-up in the press but when the event actually happened and the astrophysicists were taken surprise, they actually buried the story out of sheer embarassment! I was following the news at the time and I remember searching Google News for at least a week after it happened trying to figure out what the outcome was. When I finally found something, it said "there was a flash" with the implication that impact must have been more mechanically energetic than they had calculated.
But modern scientists are so steeped in the dogma that "science = quantization" that they can't even comprehend such important distinctions. Newton would be incensed. The goal of science is to explain the phenomena, in causal terms if possible, and otherwise to have the humility to acknowledge that the theory is correlative, not causal. In the case of modern astrophysics, they do precisely the opposite. They either ignore or wonder at the phenomena. Dogma is characterized by an aversion to unknown and unexplainable phenomena. Good science is characterized by a preference for new and unexplained phenomena because these are the catalysts that drive improvement in the status quo.
There is also a failure to sort what we know on the basis of its relative certainty. There is merely "the Standard Model". If it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it's part of the Standard Model. Otherwise, it's not. But good science allows discernment on the part of the scientist - he is expected to rank what he knows in order of what is more or less certain. You will note that the above author utterly fails on this point - he appeals to "Big Bang cosmology" as an across-the-board synthesis of so many phenomena that it is more certain than the direct implications of phenomena we can observe right here in our laboratories (e.g. the forces operating in plasmas, whether in a laboratory or in space). The interpretation of cosmic microwave background radiation, for example, is a very distant question and its potential answers are subordinate to, not superior to, the understanding of electromagnetic phenomena.
One final note. The plasma cosmologists love to use the supposed perfection of the gravitational model against the gravity-only crank cosmologists. I think it was Velikovsky (not an astrophysicist but still a great polemicist on the subject) who would ask his audience whether anyone thought it possible that a charged body moving in free space could move through a magnetic field and be unaffected by it. Never, he said, in his career of asking this question of audiences had anyone - PhD, astrophysicist, comsologist, anybody - raised their hand. We know that the planets have charge. We know they and the Sun have massive magnetic fields that envelop one another. And yet the modern, gravity-only equations of their motions perfectly describe their orbits. What the heck is going on, here??
The "plasma cosmology/electric universe" stuff seems to scream "pseudoscience" and "crackpot". I also ask, where's the math?
It won't dethrone GR (General Relativity), with its simple and aesthetically pleasing equations, its derivation from simple principles, its explanation of the success of the Newtonian gravity approximation, its explanation of the precession of the orbit of mercury, its quantitative and prescient prediction of the bending of starlight that can be seen during an eclipse, and its prescient prediction of the slowing of clocks (e.g. atomic) near the surface of the Earth compared with those in an airplane due to the bending of spacetime.
It is the fantastically precise corrections from GR, not "plasma cosmology", that man-made sattelites must take into account in order to provide you with accurate GPS service. If you can find your way to the Starbucks using a GPS system based on plasma cosmology, then let us know:
"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time." - http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Honestly, there have been a LOT of attempts to bring down GR and special relativity for decades. Some of them are serious theories. Others are laughable theories like plasma cosmology. And there have been experimental mistakes like tachyonic neutrinos and the Pioneer anomaly. GR has withstood them all.
BTW, the Earth including the atmosphere, has a neutral charge. Also, Velikovsky was a fanatical Zionist crank, not a scientist.
^^missed the entire point behind bringing up plasma cosmology^^
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Please see above - math is not science or even a necessary condition for science.
Prescience is the stuff of fortune-tellers, not science. Prediction just means you have a strong mathematical generalization - it says nothing about whether you have causality. In other words, it's overrated.
In addition, you seem to have confused GR and SR. GR is still not empirically validated, though some scientists hold that Gravity Probe B has validated it. Everything else you've mentioned pertains to SR not GR.
Note that Ptolemy's model was more precise than the Copernican model for sometime after Copernicus and, later, Kepler worked it out. Mathematical precision is still merely correlative.
I'll come back to the charge issue. Velikovsky was definitely an interesting character and I'm not comfortable with his Zionistic leanings. At least he knew the difference between causation and correlation, something that escapes most modern scientists.
Prescience is the stuff of fortune-tellers, not science. Prediction just means you have a strong mathematical generalization - it says nothing about whether you have causality.
I meant that Einstein used GR to make bold predictions of previously unknown phenomenon (the bending of starlight) and instructed experimenters to wait for an eclipse to be able to see the effect. And then they confirmed his theory.
In addition, you seem to have confused GR and SR. GR is still not empirically validated
I've confused nothing. Do you even know what SR and GR are? Nothing is or ever will be 100% empirically validated. But go ahead and post some other theories that tell us by how much GPS satellites need to account for the slowing of time in a gravitational field in order to function properly. Let's see your theories that will be useful in novel technology invented 57 years from now.
As far as the Big Bang goes, scientists aren't particularly attached to a "creationist" theory. Einstein himself sought to devise a model of an static, infinitely old universe. But it doesn't work: the Big Bang model gathers more evidence every day. I don't really understand how an old universe would avoid the depletion of hydrogen through nucleosynthesis anyway.
Do you even know what SR and GR are?
Do you? The precession in the perihelion of Mercury was no evidence of GR. SR is taken to be experimentally confirmed by the failure to detect a luminiferous ether and subsequent experiments. The first decisive evidence of GR in history was Gravity Probe B. Look it up.
I don't want to get into it right now but both SR and GR can be re-interpreted in less exotic ways (the nowadays ever-fashionable "counter-intuitive" interpretations of time and space being stretched or dilated are best understood as errors of reification). From a metaphysical point-of-view, SR and GR are only credible if physicists are indeed correct that we've "just about closed the book" on physics. My bets are against that view - we're only scratching the surface of physics and this will become much clearer in the coming decades. I hope to see the revolution at least begin before I die.
Speaking of correlation v. causation and the ability to predict something based upon a model:
When the paradigm was that the earth was the center of the solar system and universe, the mainstream astrophysicists of the day were able to predict the movement of heavenly bodies. Sure, to us today, we look and say why would anyone think that Venus, for example, would move in the pattern it does with earth as the center (the loopy, flower like pattern)? But it didn't matter at the time because some people were able to predict the motion and so, their theory was viewed as truth. It turns out, as we now know, that while they were able to make accurate predictions and Venus does in fact have that type of orbit when earth is viewed as the center, the theory was incorrect. Venus and the earth orbit the sun, but that doesn't mean there isn't a different way to predict the movement of Venus. This is the point Clayton and I are making. No one is asserting that the predictions aren't correct; however we are hypothesizing that the theory is incorrect in the same manner as the geocentric model was.
The precession in the perihelion of Mercury was no evidence of GR. The first decisive evidence of GR in history was Gravity Probe B.
Whatever. It has survived 94 years worth of testing.
I don't want to get into it right now but both SR and GR can be re-interpreted in less exotic ways
No, they cannot. Space is non-Euclidean and circumference = pi * radius is wrong in our universe.
von Mises didn't seem to have a problem accepting it. I'm not sure what your problem is.
"The solid bodies and light rays of our environment, says Reichenbach, behave according to the laws of Euclid. But this, he adds, is merely "a fortunate empirical fact." Beyond the space of our environment the physical world behaves according to other geometries." - http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%20von%20Mises/Ultimate%20Foundation%20of%20Economic%20Science.pdf - Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate foundation of Economic Science p.14
we're only scratching the surface of physics and this will become much clearer in the coming decades. I hope to see the revolution at least begin before I die.
That would be exciting. Let's check in another 94 years to see how GR is doing.
On the issue of electrical charge, let's not get into debates over angels on pin heads. The Earth is a charged body - it's charged at the surface, it's charged in the atmosphere and the plasma layers above the Earth carry charge as well. Saying it's "net neutral" is just spooky hand-waving... every electrical circuit is neutral on net. That's why it's called a "circuit". The key question is whether there is electrical current which is always a sign of separated unlike charges moving toward equilibrium. The Earth's surface carries a daily electrical current (telluric currents), the atmosphere shows currents (charge flows) in the Aurora, and so on - those are just the more obvious electrical activities.
The Earth is moving through the Sun's magnetic field and every charged particle that mechanically influences the Earth (whether at the surface, below or in the atmosphere) experiences a net force from the Sun's magnetism. Talk of whether "the Earth's" or "the Sun's" magnetic field is responsible is obfuscatory - the fact is that the Sun's magnetic field is affecting the Earth's and, thereby, affecting every charged particle on Earth. The same goes for the plasma layers surrounding the Earth. The Earth's magnetic field is altered by its interaction with the Sun's magnetic field, which must necessarily affect (apply mechanical force to and/or alter electrical current flow) whatever is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field.
The Earth's magnetic field is altered by its interaction with the Sun's magnetic field, which must necessarily affect (apply mechanical force to and/or alter electrical current flow) whatever is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field.
Yes, that's what causes aurorae. But the motion of the planets is explained entirely by GR, which you agreed was empirically verified. The net effect of electromagnetism on the planets' motion is, consequently, zero.
There are are politically-influenced and monetarily-influenced crackpot theories in academia worth assaulting. GR isn't one of them. At best you can refine it with corrections having to do with quantum mechanics or dark matter or dark energy or something.
No one is asserting that the predictions aren't correct; however we are hypothesizing that the theory is incorrect in the same manner as the geocentric model was.
GR asserts that the laws of physics must be generally covariant, i.e. the same under any coordinate system, even one associated with a non-inertial reference frame. GR itself obeys this principle. The geocentric viewpoint is thus perfectly correct. And when I spin my body in a circle, the stars actually do whirl overhead at speeds greater than that of light.
In the end, only the math matters.
BTW I found the Madame Blavatsky video intriguing. But I found myself not really learning anything from it. I find von Mises more interesting than any of her spiritual "teachers".
I have no trouble accepting an electron as an infinetismal organism that seeks what it desires and avoids what it dislikes. The mechanical is akin to but simpler than the animate. I can also accept a human being as a mindless agglomeration of mass obeying the laws of physics deterministically; the animate is akin to but more complex than the mechanical.
In the end, I just ended up accepting the platitude mechanical = animate.
It depends on how you define radius and circumference, physically (i.e. it's a matter of how you define measurement). We can define a measure in such a way that Euclidean space is preserved within the measure space. In fact, this is precisely what our perception must do since we can only perceive Euclidean 3-space.
von Mises didn't seem to have a problem accepting it
What the hell does that have to do with anything??
only the math matters
For what? What does the math matter for?
We can define a measure in such a way that Euclidean space is preserved within the measure space.
Perhaps for one or two distances. You can say "apply a correction factor of X when measuring the circumference at a distance of Y" to make C=2pi R magically work. But there is no consistent way to do this for all distances between all possible pairs of points that is any simpler than simply accepting curved space. In any case, this is pointless quibling. Positivism, the epistemology of physics, says that the mathematical predictions are all that matters, whether it's GR or an alternative like a crackpot's complex intertwinement of plasma-induced numerical hacks.
In fact, this is precisely what our perception must do since we can only perceive Euclidean 3-space.
I'm not really sure what that means. We can visually perceive a distortion caused by gravitational lensing. I have pictures to prove it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG
And near a massive black hole's event horizon, one would perceive the black hole "below" them as enveloping most of the visible field while the rest of the universe including the part "behind" the blackhole would appear in a small, bright circle above one's head.
When you see a golf ball rolling toward you, and it begins to veer toward one side, you know that it's travelling on a curved surface. Nothing magical there. And properly equipped, a human observing or navigating is bound to accept curved space as perfectly natural and commonplace.
You can see what I'm talking about here. The transform in this case is mapping Lorentz space to Euclidean 2-space.
"What a black hole would look like to a human" is not a valid thought-experiment because a human would be torn apart by gravity long before he got close enough to perceive spacetime distortion.
The transform in this case is mapping Lorentz space to Euclidean 2-space.
This is only SR. In this toy problem, there's no curvature of space (the Riemann tensor vanishes for all observers).
What a black hole would look like to a human" is not a valid thought-experiment because a human would be torn apart by gravity long before he got close enough to perceive spacetime distortion.
Not true for a supermassive black hole. The tidal forces outside the event horizon are bearable for the human body. There is also the possibility of operating a unmanned probe, of course.
In fact, it is possible for a human body to actually enter an event horizon unscathed, though there is no means for them to tell us about it:
The point at which tidal forces destroy an object or kill a person depends on the black hole's size. For a supermassive black hole, such as those found at a galaxy's center, this point lies within the event horizon, so an astronaut may cross the event horizon without noticing any squashing and pulling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
Clayton: From a metaphysical point-of-view, SR and GR are only credible if physicists are indeed correct that we've "just about closed the book" on physics. My bets are against that view - we're only scratching the surface of physics and this will become much clearer in the coming decades. I hope to see the revolution at least begin before I die.
From a metaphysical point-of-view, SR and GR are only credible if physicists are indeed correct that we've "just about closed the book" on physics. My bets are against that view - we're only scratching the surface of physics and this will become much clearer in the coming decades. I hope to see the revolution at least begin before I die.
Have you read The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov?
@gotlucky: I have now... ;-)
I think that Asimov is discussing something slightly different - he's talking about the gradual process of refinement of physical theory within an otherwise uncontroversial metaphysical framework. The trouble with Einsteinian relativity is that not only does it make physical claims about the world, it also makes metaphysical claims that may or may not turn out to be correct. That is, relativity theory makes a claim that gravity (spacetime curvature) is in fact a causal theory - contra Newton (see the quote I gave above) - and it posits that it is reasonable to claim that gravity is causal because it is a consequence of the universal speed limit, the speed of light.
But when you dig into the reasons for believing that the speed of light is the universal speed limit, you find that it rests on much shakier ground than the consensus of physicists would lead you to believe. The essential reason for asserting the universal speed limit of light speed is the failure to detect a luminiferous ether. This rationale is inconclusive to begin with: "We don't see it so therefore it must not exist" is hardly incontestable evidence. And it is getting shakier as we learn more and more about the Earth's electrical and magnetic properties. Specifically, the fact that we do not detect a luminiferous ether could be a consequence of "entrainment". If you read the article, you will see that relativity theory actually grew out of the attempts to rectify etheric theory with the negative result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment and other problems with etheric theory.
But what makes relativity different is that it abolishes any medium for the propagation of the light wave. This makes light, in some sense, "metaphysically absolute". It is pure, unmediated wave. It is not the waving of something else, it is raw wave. Hence, the consequences of relativity theory are causally sufficient to explain whatever phenomena they are responsible for - which happens to include gravitation (curvature of spacetime). Basically, Einsteinian relativity says: "Because the speed of light is the absolute speed limit of the Universe and is constant in every intertial frame (and some other stuff regarding the equivalence of accelerating inertial frames), gravity causes the Earth to orbit the Sun in the same sense that a baseball bat causes the baseball to fly when struck." That is much different than noting that the curvature of the Earth is non-zero and, therefore, that the Earth is not flat or even than noting that the heavenly bodies go about the Sun rather than about the Earth. The very meaning of causality is itself being touched by relativity theory.
the speed of light is the universal speed limit, you find that it rests on much shakier ground than the consensus of physicists would lead you to believe
Actually relativity has no problem with tachyons, which would have imaginary rest mass and would be forbidden from transitioning to below the speed of light. But SR does say a particle with positive rest mass can't be accelerated to the speed of light as that would require an infinite amount of energy. And the dependence of mass on speed is something tested zillions of times a day in particle accelerators.
relativity theory makes a claim that gravity (spacetime curvature) is in fact a causal theory
Not really. All the equations of SR and GR are time-reversible. It is valid in GR for a series of gravitaitonal waves to arrive at the event horizon of a blackhole causing an astronaut to be ejected out. To rule out this miraculous event you need thermodynamic considerations that apply to just about any other theory.
Relativity theory actually undermines causality. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument
In philosophy, the Rietdijk–Putnam argument, named after C. W. Rietdijk and Hilary Putnam, uses 20th-century findings in physics—specifically in special relativity—to support the philosophical position known as four-dimensionalism.
Basically, past and future are determined. Instead of saying "past event A causes future event B", it is more accurate to say "events A and B are related in a way such that the laws of physics remain valid".
Most physicists don't care about the metaphysical, unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo. Feel free to give them better narratives or interpretations if you think it will aid them. Just don't screw up the math - that's already working.
Honestly, SR and GR are more philosophically satisfying than Gallilean physics. SR puts time on a similar footing to the other dimensions, allowing you to "rotate" into time through a boost (velocity). And GR dispels the mystical notion of absolute space and time and lets us know that coordinate systems are merely arbitrary labels.
In summary, (a) your doubts about the experimental reliability especially of SR are laughably absurd and (b) no amount of philosophical hand-wringing will overthrow SR or GR which are experimentally verified. At best you can restate or extend or refine the theories.
the dependence of mass on speed is something tested zillions of times a day in particle accelerators.
*sigh - but how do we measure mass? Energy spectra! In other words, it's completely circular... it could be that the amount of energy required to move a particular mass to a particular velocity simply increases in the appropriate proportion with gamma. In terms of the math, it doesn't matter how we interpret gamma, whether as increasing the mass itself or increasing the energy required to move a non-increasing mass.
This goes to the heart of the matter - we are back-porting fictional metaphysical entities (unobserved mass, unobserved energy) and modifying the ordinary meaning of mass, energy and causality to conform to these fictional entities. That is a serious philosophical mistake. A rock does not get heavier when you throw it. It simply takes this much exertion to get that much effect.
relativity theory makes a claim that gravity (spacetime curvature) is in fact a causal theory Relativity theory actually undermines "causality". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument
Relativity theory actually undermines "causality". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument
Um, yeah, that's my point. And that's the whole problem. Causality is an a priori category of knowledge, it's not subject to revision by subordinate subjects of knowledge, such as physics.
past and future are determined.
*shrug - this is simply false in any sense that is meaningful to human awareness.
Instead of saying "past event A causes future event B", it is more accurate to say "events A and B are related in a way such that the laws of physics remain valid".
I have no problem with this. Time itself is an attribute of conscious awareness and there is no reason to impose the peculiarities of human consciousness onto those aspects of Nature that are not like human consciousness (e.g. a light particle or a galaxy).
Most physicists don't care about all the metaphysical, unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo. Feel free to give them better narratives or interpretations if you think it will aid them. Just don't screw up the math - that's already working.
Nobody disputes the math. The math is irrelevant to the scientific problems. Math is just used to organize and compress the data of the phenomena, nothing more.
In summary, (a) your doubts about the experimental reliability especially of SR are laughably absurd and (b) no amount of philosophical hand-wringing will overthrow SR or GR which are experimentally verified. At best you can extend or refine the theories.
GR is far from "experimentally verified". The relationships between mass and energy certainly follow the gamma scaling with velocity but that really doesn't tell us very much about the inherent structure of the physical world. It is the claims that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame and that equivalently accelerating frames are physically equivalent that lead to the bizarro world of bending spacetime and black holes. At best, the standard conceptualizations of SR/GR - even if SR/GR are true - are grossly misleading and transport the individual away from the facts of laboratory and science into the realm of theoretical daydreaming.
it could be that the amount of energy required to move a particular mass to a particular velocity simply increases in the appropriate proportion with gamma
It does. And the enormous energy is imparted on the moved object. A proton so accelerated can have as much energy as a basbeball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
"the Oh-My-God particle observed on the evening of 15 October 1991... a subatomic particle with kinetic energy equal to that of a baseball (5 ounces or 142 grams)"
At relativistic speeds, electrons gain relativistic mass and as such are less affected by resistance. This is one factor in initiating a lightning bolt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_runaway_electron_avalanche
This goes to the heart of the matter... modifying the ordinary meaning of mass, energy
The terms "mass" and "energy" haven't been used in physics for more than few centures I think, so updating their meaning shouldn't be so objectionable. Anyway, devise new terms like bloop and gleek if it pleases you. If it helps you feel better, there are others engaging in pedantic arguments over the exact terminology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself.
Relativity theory actually undermines "causality".
I think I overstated this. In a sense it is indifferent to causality. It is indifferent to whether you choose the interpretation "past A causes future B" or "future B causes past A". FYI Newtonian gravity and mechanics are also perfectly time-reversible.
bizarro world of... black holes
FYI, with the knowledge of a finite value of the speed of light from Maxwell's equations, Newtonian gravity also admits conglomerations of mass from which emitted light falls below the needed escape velocity. But there is a contradiction here - if light travels at constant speed, how could it not escape? Hence SR.
It's funny that there are those who attack capitalism while enjoying goods like cathode ray tube TV's, GPS devices, cancer radiaton treatments, MRI, and nuclear power. And then there are those who attack SR and GR while enjoying the same goods.
LRC article on problems with the lunar landing myth...
Just to give you an idea of how much ionizing radiation (the kind that scrambles DNA and cell structures) there is in space when not protected by a gigantic magnetic field...
Aristophanes - "Blavatsky is a new age goddess. Have you read ther theories on Atlantis and the arians?"
Yes, actually, and whether you believe in the supernatural or not (I do), it is absolute drivel. Madame Blavatsky was a hack, and was even recognized as such by other occultists in her day. She did have a great deal of influence on German occultists, though, for reasons that should be obvious.
Madame Blavatsky was a hack
She was an entrepreneur in the spiritual services industry. :-P
Seriously, though, she pretty much just collected stories and ideas from Victorian occult society and disseminated them in a form nearly suitable for consumption by polite society. She was kind of like the Gene Simmons or Ozzie of her day... just bad enough to give her "cred" but not so bad she couldn't sell her books. Crowley was much the same act though I think he was aiming for a smaller and more affluent market niche.
I've been searching up and down the internet for a transcript of the article that the YT video in the OP is supposed to be quoting from and I simply cannot find it. I'm starting to wonder if Blavatsky is misattributed here. In any case, it doesn't really matter, the video pretty much presents a form of animism but what I liked about it was the "conscientious anthropomorphism" employed. It's not merely saying "the world is spirit" for the sake of trying to be shocking... it's saying, "one way to think about the Unvierse, that humans might find beneficial, is to think of everything in the Universe as if it were an acting being, seeking what it likes and avoiding what it dislikes."
As a computer engineer, I can attest that computer hardware is much more fruitfully thought of as if it has a goal or end which it is seeking. If the Universe, at root, is more like a computer than it is like a geometrical construction, a conscientiously animistic view of the behavior of physical entities will be much more profitable than the rote numerical model by which everything in the Universe blindly follows laws. I think it's safe to say, at this point in time, that the computational metaphor has surpassed the geometrical metaphor.
"one way to think about the Unvierse, that humans might find beneficial, is to think of everything in the Universe as if it were an acting being, seeking what it likes and avoiding what it dislikes." Isn't that just basically true, though? The basic parts that form physical reality (atoms, elements, and so forth) attract or repel things based on their characteristics. The things they make up attract or repel other things accordingly, and so forth.
How I would personally apply this basic fact is: It would make sense that this doesn't change just because a bunch of these parts happen to form something we—with our indescribably limited knowledge and scope of understanding—think of as "conscious", "autonomous", or having "free will".
So who are we to say we control ourselves? We can't even fathom what's going on in the machine that causes our actions. And, to your point, who are we to say our parts don't respond to input we are consciously unaware of?