LifeIsBrief

I've goofed off in physics forums before, but once I suggest that the fundamental flaw in relativity, is that it says perception is reality, the trolls just yell at me for being wrong... Then they proceed to explain, relativity, in numerous different ways, all of which, fundamentally suggest that perception is reality. "Well if the light stops moving, time stopped, because otherwise how can you measure time?". To which I suggest, "Well, you could count in your head. Time is an consequence of consciousness, it's just our way of measuring movement"... "No, that's nonsense, space time is a thing, it's curved, and it stops existing for other people when you move at light speed."... I mean, really, how do you respond to "scientists" who say that? I dare not bring up the ether, despite the fact that Tesla was way smarter than Einstein, because it's settled law that it was nonsense. Of course, if you look at the experiment which proves that the ether is nonsense, you realize that it's fundamentally based on the idea that perception is reality. Hertz conducted the experiment, using the false assumption that the spinning earth, was moving faster than the air within it. Hertz, Einstein, and Tesla all believed in the ether at the end of their lives, but Einstein simply thought it was impossible to test for, and that has become, standard physics "It either doesn't exist, or is impossible to test for, and anything else is pseudo science" In essence, I'm positing that electromagnetic waves act strangely in the ether, and that they are actually propelling us away from the sun, at a speed, which makes the constantly expanding sun appear to remain a constant size. Might be a bit crazy. I just thought some predominantly atheist anarchists, might be more open minded than a traditional physics forum. Also, I do think that E equals mc squared... Lots of what relativity predicts, is true. The math is good, but the thought experiments that try to prove time travel, and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense... I think they're rotting scientific brains. Einstein spends a lot of time trying to prove to you that causality doesn't matter. That why gravity exists, and what exactly it is, is inconsequential to his wonderful math. Again, it just irks me. Also, if matter was a constantly expanding sphere, it explains quantum probabilities. If you shoot a photon, at something that's constantly growing, and spherical, you're going to get probabilistic results. If everything was maintaining a constant size, you theoretically should be able to hit it in a specific location, and predict the response. Finally... doesn't constant expansion of matter sound like a pretty good explanation, of why e equals mc squared? If matter is just sitting there, having the energy to blow up a chunk of the planet, just doesn't make much sense... to me. @TheRobin Yeah... the real problem with my theory, is that I'm not trying to change the math... I'm trying to prove that Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, and a shitty philosopher. He literally suggests that we'll never be able to prove the causality of his math, and everyone just accepts that as gospel The formulas have almost nothing to do with his very strange explanations of them, especially in relation to time travel. He got the math right though, so he has, in essence, made it impossible to prove him wrong. He who makes the math, gets to write the philosophy of why the math works.

It's not so much that relativity created relativism, but it did, almost claim to prove it. There's another thought experiment in relativity, which explains that if you were to move away from a clock at light speed, it would stop, and if you moved at faster than light speed it would move backwards... Einstein suggested that this actually means you're going back in time... That's insane, because of geometry. Yes, if you moved away, at faster than the speed of light, a clock would appear to move backwards, but if you then switched directions, and moved back towards the clock at faster than light speed, time would appear lurch forward at insane speeds. So, you could never reach the past, only view it by passing old light. The idea that so many people accept his perception is reality argument, drives me nuts... despite the fact I may simply be making an error that I can't understand. As to the shrinking moon. One of the problems with my theory, is that it's a bit complex, and I might just be an ignorant laborer, but... here goes nothing. When a nuclear bomb explodes on earth, there is a blast wave... All of the air, surrounding the explosion, is pushed towards you at an insane speed.... Why isn't the sun doing that to us? What if the earth, is simply rolling on the edge of a continuous blast wave? So the sun expands in a sphere, and constantly pushes everything away from it at a constant speed, this wave is most intense in a straight line, so it is constantly propelling the earth to roll along its edge. I assume, now you're thinking... Well, but there's no air, between the sun, and the earth, so there is nothing pushing us away from it... That's where the ether can come into play in two ways. One, the vacuum of space could be a material, the ether, and mass, could be a wave. So, the reason things travel faster in what we call a "vacuum" is actually because waves travel faster through a dense material. This was proposed by Tesla, by the way, not me, though he never thought that all mass was expanding, from what I can tell. As the earth expands, the moon rolls along the ether we push away, but as we have more mass, than it, we expand faster, and relative to us, the moon should start to look smaller. That doesn't explain everything though, because, as you suggested, it sounds like it should appear bigger, but be smaller. Enter, expanding magnetic fields, which propel one object away from another. So it's not a blast wave, or "heat", but an expanding repellant magnetic field which coincides with expanding mass. Our field, being weaker than the sun, pushes the moon away slower, than the sun pushes us both away, so our relative changes in size become evident slowly over time and the moon looks smaller, rather than larger. All planets and stars, propel one another away with the ether, as a material medium which magnetic fields pass through. I like this idea, but I need to come up with predictive equations for it, and now that we already know the moon is shrinking, it would be very difficult to make an impressive mathematical prediction. If you start with the data, then create the equation, that's statistics, not science. What do I find interesting about this theory? Well, if matter has always constantly expanded into the ether... then, there is no reason to suggest it couldn't possibly divide, like a cell. If this is the case, you get to a very interesting conclusion... If ever a particle of matter existed, then the existence of the entire universe, multiverse even, becomes a consequence. I don't think Einstein, or anyone else liked this idea, because it comes so close to "You don't need god, for the universe to exist", and almost everyone at the time, including Einstein, was deeply religious. Now, in my mind, "Why did a single particle of matter ever exist?" is still an interesting question, which you could go into a metaphysical reason for... but you don't really need one, reality just happens to exist, and the only reason we think that's special, is because we're here to notice. What else does this theory predict with remarkable accuracy, which nothing else can? Why does it continue to haunt me? Well... It explains why our mathematical model for entropy, is not consistent. In other words, why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and everything does not appear to get colder... which leads me to my final theory... Matter reproduces, at light speed. Every particle of matter grows and bonds, creating heat through friction, and when enough matter comes together, by simply expanding and bumping in to one another, the heat becomes so intense, that a single particle eventually reaches light speed, and it doesn't travel through time... It creates a new dimension of time. Black holes, are big bangs. Every star is trying to create a universe. We are all star dust. We love to grow, bond, heat up, and reproduce... This isn't a coincidence. I mostly just think the idea is sexy as hell, but it makes a strange type of logical sense. Proves that god is an unnecessary hypothesis, and creates immortality. When you die... eventually the earth merges with the sun, and if our sun doesn't become a black hole/big bang, eventually it will merge with another... Either way, our matter will one day pass into an entirely new universe. Our consciousness will likely be shattered upon death, in fact, I hope it is, because millions of years as a particle sounds boring as hell, but it does create a permanent self creating multiverse... and that's pretty freakin' cool. It's probably just my dumb theory though. The other reason I love this theory, is that in our current model of the world, gravity is a pull force, which makes very little sense to me, and most scientists... If the gravitron existed, it hits something, and creates the reverse, of the effect, of hitting something. That seems very unlikely. If however, mass is expanding, gravity makes perfect sense, things bump into one another, without a force.

The abolitionists, succeeded in making the state smaller and less invasive into the public life of a large segment of the population. At great cost... but it still had a positive effect. The Declaration of Independence, in large part, because of the eloquence of a very small number of individuals, dramatically reduced the role of states in their lives temporarily. Yes, I as one lone person, cannot wave a magic wand and change public opinion so vastly that the state simply collapses. However, a small group of individuals with a common goal, could easily be responsible for writing the compelling arguments, which slowly win over the population. I'm not sure if I personally have the intellect to be a part of that small group of individuals, but it seems very opposed to the idea of free will, to suggest that I, or anyone else, shouldn't try, or couldn't succeed. Simply because something has not worked in the past, or only worked on a temporary basis, does not mean that it is incapable of working in the future.

Doesn't "We get to a free society by making a free world for ourselves in our personal lives and convincing those that we can until anything different is a laughable and absurd idea. We get to a free society by advocating parents to not abuse children so that the next batch of people are capable of living in a free society and desire to do so." Lead to an incrementally smaller state over time, which inevitably dissolves, through public policy? "You cannot change public policy. You can change your life and your relationships. That is all you can change." Evidence? That's simply a declarative statement, and I can prove the first part isn't true. Public policy changes all the time, usually for the worse, I'll admit, but Abolitionists were important to freeing the slaves.

I'm talking about changing from a policy of taxation, to a policy of "recommended payment, for current services", that each individual then responds to with free will, as a way of slowly getting to a purely voluntary society. Thoreau had an idea very similar. A government that allows you to be aloof and contrary to it. Voluntaryism is the C... Where we are right now is the A... I'm trying to come up with a B, in the simplest single reform possible. Again, hopefully that .5% for MAD would simply come from people who actually enjoy the military. If we couldn't afford that, because everyone instantly gave up paying any tax however, I would have difficulty arguing against that tiny percent being a matter of force, because it might be saving the world. This could even occur over time. The first year, they take out 90% by force, and allow you to distribute anything else you want, to programs you actually support... Most people wouldn't, spending is reduced 9%, but again, personally, if my taxes went down ten percent, I would probably donate one more single percent to NASA, because I like it. Other people like different programs. Over ten or 20 years, in ten percent increments the entire tax system becomes voluntary. In essence, how do we get from taxes, to voluntary donation, without the military killing us all... It's just a thought.

"there is no experiment a person could conduct in a small volume of space that would distinguish between a gravitational field and an equivalent uniform acceleration'' Albert Einstein So... About ten years ago, while reading the theory of special relativity, I became struck by a thought experiment, in which Einstein claimed that no one could tell the difference between falling to earth, or the earth rising to meet them. Which made me instantly think, "Well... couldn't the earth, and indeed all matter just be expanding at a uniform speed, and wouldn't that look like gravity? Could mass simply be expanding like a bubble at the bottom of the ocean, as a natural reaction to the vacuum of space, creating gravity as a pure illusion?". Then I immediately responded to myself "Of course not", and tried to come up with tangible proof. For a couple years, every month or so, I would randomly think about this for a few hours, trying to prove that the concept was insane, and instead, I came up with a testable hypothesis. The ether, as something that possibly exists, or the concept, that the sun could be expanding so fast, that it literally pushes us away from it as fast as it gets bigger, make this idea incredibly difficult to imagine testing... but I eventually settled on something fascinating. The moon should be getting smaller. The earth is not hot enough to propel the moon away from it, at a speed that would allow it to appear the same size. Why? The moon has far less particles of matter, than the earth, so... If matter is constantly expanding, the moon should appear to shrink. I came up with this idea, before we found out, that the moon... Is actually shrinking (in appearance at least). I came up with it, in my bedroom, while a laborer for a warehouse though, so when science proved that I was correct... No one really cared, or thought of me. I do not, question the math of relativity, I question the philosophy of relativity. The philosophy, that led to moral relativism, that there is no way of knowing or testing, this particular aspect of his theory. How can it be science then? Stefan, randomly mentioned relativity in a list of scientific discoveries, and I immediately laughed because I thought "I already disproved relativity, just... no one knows it yet. That's not science". This is not me saying "look at how brilliant and great I am"... quite the opposite. Am I missing something obvious? It's much more likely that a goofy, overconfident, laborer such as myself, is just ignorant, than that Einstein was wrong, however, he was a patent clerk. Can someone prove to me, that I am wrong, and that gravity is a force, rather than the natural expansion of mass into a vacuum, or the ether? Since they proved the only testable aspect of my hypothesis, before I had proposed it in official channels, there is no way I will ever get credit for it. It is perfectly natural to assume that I'm just lying about the timing... but, imagine I'm not, and prove me wrong. Please, it will help me sleep once a month. Thanks in advance.

If taxes, were a matter of voluntary choice, wouldn't government shrink to the size at which it would be efficient? I have a lot of trouble imagining a way in which anarcho-capitalism can be instituted, without simply waiting for our current system to destroy itself... and this is the only solution I have come up with. Could an overwhelming majority of Americans, or Canadians, actually vote, for the very specific reform, of making taxes a matter of voluntary choice. What do I mean by taxes being a matter of voluntary choice? You get your paycheck, along with it, the government gives you an estimate, of what you would have to pay them, to maintain current services. You then choose how much you want to give, to which entities. Some people would donate 10% to a military that protects borders... Some would donate to the EPA, and the EPA could be used for the specific purpose of regulating violence through environmental destruction in business (polluting a river, fishing it extinct, etc.). NASA funding would likely skyrocket, because people like space a lot more then they like the military industrial complex. Would there have to be a minimum? In my mind, yes... Mutually Assured Destruction. I know, it's probably the least popular American, Russian, and Chinese policy, but also, I would argue the single most important. MAD has made the initiation of force between states, inherently opposed to self interest, and self preservation. Without it, I do believe we would return to our previous interstate violent behavior. Now, I will admit that it has only worked in theory, not practice thus far... but I would be very wary of abandoning it. Also, I can't imagine that maintaining MAD costs more than .5% of your income. I would suggest that, if people immediately stopped paying all taxes we would need to re institute this, very tiny tax. I don't think however, people would stop paying taxes. I think that many people would contribute to social programs by choice, some people even love the military. If social program funding is reduced, pay for employees must be reduced. The best employees will return to the market, and people desperate for a job, would work for the government at extremely low wages. Funding for government would be dramatically reduced, but so would government wages. Suddenly the term "public servant" would make more sense, because they would make less money than farmers... Fantastic. Crazy? Possible? I think such an idea could be incredibly popular.