Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 The Law of Perception
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2005 :  22:33:19  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Hi,

I'm new here and please accept my apologies if I don't start in other way than going straight to the point.

My style of writing may be not liked by you because English is not my language of origin, however, I'll try to write about this topic the best I can.

The Law of Perception is a new discovered law of physics, so the rejection to this law will be understood because it hurts...in the complete meaning of this last word...it really hurts.

This discovered has its copyrights and I invite you to read about it with an independent research made about some current theories of science in general. I'll hope, this conversation won't turn in agressive discussions as it happened everytime this law has been presented in other forums.

Well, pleae allow me to talk about this law.

The Law of Perception establishes that our physical senses allow us to perceive the physical universe in its present only. No exceptions.

PHYSICS

The current theories of physics imply that we might be able to perceive with our senses and with the sensors of the instruments the physical universe in a tense other than the present. Nevertheless, the collected evidence from physical reality through the establishment of the Law of Perception discard those possibilities.

The Law of Perception is a law of physics by being a property of the physical phenomenon of perception or its relationship between the various quantities or qualities which may be used to describe perception, that applies to all senses and sensors without exception.

The collected evidence to confirm the existence and rule of this law of physics is not subjected to predictions obtained by abstract mathematical calculations. Every formula and equation in reference or obtained from our experiences is ruled by the Law of Perception as a consequence of what it has been perceived.

A established fact is that there is not a unique formula to prove either the existence or validity of the principle of causality and which applies to all the events of cause and effect in general. All the formulas and equations are subjected to a cause and its effects, in that succession not so in reverse.

The same as well, there is not a unique formula to prove either the existence or validity of the Law of Perception and which applies to all the broad class of perception in general. Every formula and equation is subjected to what it has been perceived first.

The existence and veracity of the Law of Perception will be confirmed in every test and experiment made in any branch of science.

continue...

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2005 :  23:13:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

The same as well, there is not a unique formula to prove either the existence or validity of the Law of Perception and which applies to all the broad class of perception in general. Every formula and equation is subjected to what it has been perceived first.

The existence and veracity of the Law of Perception will be confirmed in every test and experiment made in any branch of science.
Right, because it's not really a law of physics, but instead a post-modernistic philosophical viewpoint. Rejection of an objective reality moves one well away from the philosophy of science.

And, welcome to the Skeptic Friends Network.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/02/2005 :  23:51:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
continued...

By doing an overview of some thories of physics, it has ben found that predictions made in base of thought and abstract mathematics alone are not in accord with reality and their evidence is found controversial. As an example, in base of a factual evidence as it is gravity, the thought and mathematical prediction of a possible existence of black spheres first and black holes later, is not commonly accepted when it is applied to its opposite result which predicts the possible existence of white holes.

The phenomena known as black holes started with an imaginary event idealized by John Michell, who in 1783 was the director of the Thornhill Observatory in Yorkshire, England. He made some calculations about what speed should be needed to escape from the gravity of the Sun. He calculated for this event the needed speed as of one five-hundred the speed of light. In those years, the speed of light was estimated as 183,000mps. According to his calculations. he imagined that light should be prevented from escaping in a star 590 times greater than the Sun and by having the same average of density. His papers were read before the Royal Society of London in 1783, "All light emitted from such a body would made to return to it by its own power of gravity." After Michell, in the year 1796, the French astronomer Pierre Simion Laplace came to the ame conclusion with his own abstract calculations. Until then, such imaginary stars were known as black spheres. After centuries of astronomical observations, the greater size of sighted stars was half of what Michell and Laplace wrote as a requisite for their light being pulled back by their gravity. Some of those greatest stars of 200 to 300 times the size of the Sun -called novas- irradiated light with such a strong intensity that the idea of pulling their own light just by being of a great size was questioned. This reality did not discourage the imagination of some scientists, in 1928 a new imaginary event appeared in their minds and the black spheres were calculated to be formed by stars having just twice the mass of the Sun and up. This new idea of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar which was up-dated by Robert Oppenheimer in 1939, had as a mai requisite a collapsing event which should shrink the star creating a strong density able to obtain a strong gravity. In 1969, John Wheeler changed the name black spheres by black holes. Factual observations have shown that the collapsing of novas -supernovas- created huge explosions from where the residual of the core is called a neutron star and the other residual is called nebulae. The existence and formation of those neutron stars and their nebulae is known by observations and knowledge acquired by records from former observations, as the Crab Nebulae. Apparently, the surrounding of some neutron stars are filled by a heavy dark atmosphere caused by its own exrtinguishing and which absorbs their out going and the incoming light, creating for us the illusion that their light is being pulled because we can not see them. Illusions created by distance are very common events in astronomy. The names of other different kind of stars are closely related to what the calculations made may coincide with the perceived characteristics of those bodies. However, their real origin or cause are no more than assumptions made. The idea of black holes has developed into a greater imagination when black holes are thought to become as regions of distorted space-time as well. According to the book The Universe in a Nutshell, its author Stephen Hawking wrote that black holes evaporate. ("The black hole would therefore slowly evaporate and shrink in size until it became smaller than the radius of curvature of the saddle-like extra dimensions.") The scientific definition of evaporation is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat. By consequence, according to Hawking, black holes have also the characteristic of being liquid. The theory of Quantum has developed a different idea by indicating that black holes radiate particles with a temperature inversely proportional to the mass and directly proportional to Plank's constant. (Plank's constant, simbolized as h, is a physical constant know as quantum of action, which is the ratio of the energy of a photon to its frequency that is equal to 6.626075 ^+ - 0.000004 x 10 ^-34 joule-second). Not satisfied with the imaginations of the existence of black holes as pulling light and time, the imaginations have continued with a process where black holes will transform themselves into tunnels of time or paths to other dimensions or universes, and by such imaginary phenomena they have received the name of white holes. These white holes should become to be stars which will shine eternaly like producing a new universe. This idea is not welcome by the majority of the supporters of black holes, even when some of them compared the white holes with quasars. Others claim that if their existence is possible, white holes may exist in another universe or dimension and we won't be able to observe them.
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  00:00:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Thanks Dave.

In the following messages you might read that the origin of time as a flowing physical dimension was just a philosophical view and an incorrect interpretation of the illusion created by motion and distance. I guess that after reading that part, we might dialogue about it.

Please have patience, you might find out that what you have learned through the years is not the correct way to interpret our perceptions of the universe. And you know that if you don't know what is what you are perceiving, every interpretation of yours should be mostly false.

Best wishes.
Go to Top of Page

Paulos23
Skeptic Friend

USA
446 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  00:47:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Paulos23's Homepage Send Paulos23 a Private Message
Funny, I looked up Law of Perception in google and found it conected to Marketing, Phycoligy, and Religion but not Physics.

Funny, this doesn't seam to be or act like a law of physics either.

You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  01:11:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

Thanks Dave.

In the following messages you might read that the origin of time as a flowing physical dimension was just a philosophical view and an incorrect interpretation of the illusion created by motion and distance. I guess that after reading that part, we might dialogue about it.

Please have patience, you might find out that what you have learned through the years is not the correct way to interpret our perceptions of the universe. And you know that if you don't know what is what you are perceiving, every interpretation of yours should be mostly false.

Best wishes.

Hi Lawrules, and welcome!

Just ran a quick google on "The Law of Perception" and found nothing but a screed to do with advertising -- the public perception of one product over another, or something equally disinteresting (I didn't bother to read the whole thing).

For some perverse reason, I am reminded of Fermat's last Theroem. It drove generations of mathematicians whacko and was never proven until a couple of decades ago. And then it took Prof. Alexander Wiles in the neighborhood of 7 years to do it.
quote:
In the margin of his copy of a book by Diophantus, Pierre de Fermat wrote that it is possible to have a square be the sum of two squares, but that a cube can not be the sum of two cubes, nor a fourth power be a sum of two fourth powers, and so on. Further, he wrote that he had found a truly marvelous proof which the margin was too small to contain.

Fermat's Last Theorem states that

x>n + y>n = z>n

has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2.

That is to say, there are no integers x, y, z such that x3 + y3 = z3, or integers x, y, z such that x7 + y7 = z7.

Although this is easily stated, it has proved to be one of the most puzzling problems in the whole history of mathematics. Long after all the other statements made by Fermat had been either proved or disproved, this remained; hence it is called Fermat's Last Theorem (actually, Conjecture would be more accurate than Theorem).



Like Dave, I suspect that this has more to do with a particular philosophy than a scientific hypothisis. Can you direct us to the literature?


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  01:17:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Paulos23,

I think I wrote that this law of physics has its copyrights, no mention of finding it in the web was made.

Please have some patience about this topic.

It may run slow but it will get to the point with certainty.

Best wishes.

Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  01:28:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Hi filthy,

Yes, that was a great task and finally the Last Theorem of Fermat was resolved with success.

Please, I beg you something, this is just a little -lets say- favor.

The same joy of finding the way to resolve the Last Theorem of Fermat, I should like to be felt when I ask to resolve and prove that theorem using grains of rice.

In other words, to go beyond abstract mathematics and turn those numbers into real quantities of existing things.

I am skeptic that such task is possible.

I am founding my skepticism in the Law of Perception which helps me to discriminate ideas and imaginations from existing physical means.

I beg for your help in this.

Thank you.

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  04:18:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
My style of writing may be not liked by you because English is not my language of origin, however, I'll try to write about this topic the best I can.



I don't mean any insult here:

It's not your writing style.

It is the incomplete command of English.

An attempt to communicate an abstract or complicated bit of information requires precision in the use of language to prevent miscommunication.

So forgive me for not commenting on your posts. I'd like to be sure of what it is I'm commenting on before I comment.

And welcome to the SFN.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  06:34:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Lawrules as the others have already said welcome to SFN.
You said:
quote:
The Law of Perception establishes that our physical senses allow us to perceive the physical universe in its present only. No exceptions.

This seems rather obvious to me. When we observe stars we are observing light that was emitted many years in the past but of course we percieve or measure it in the present. I don't see what is so earth-shattering about this statement.
I don't think this is a law of physics (because it is implicit that we percieve in the present).
I am not sure where you are heading with this.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  06:47:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Lawrules said
quote:
I think I wrote that this law of physics has its copyrights, no mention of finding it in the web was made.

I can copyright, "The 3-headed bouncing Lemur", but that means absolutely nothing.
The point is almost everything is on the 'net. If this 'Law of Physics' had any validity, I would certainly expect to see it on the 'net.

I am going to make a prediction (about the future, in the present - but you are reading it in my future, which is your present), this copyrighted material is yours, and soon you are going to direct us to your site which has that copyrighted material.

Did I guess right?



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

woolytoad
Skeptic Friend

313 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  07:03:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send woolytoad a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23

Funny, I looked up Law of Perception in google and found it conected to Marketing, Phycoligy, and Religion but not Physics.

Funny, this doesn't seam to be or act like a law of physics either.



As Dave said, this is a post-modern philosophical viewpoint thingie. This has nothing to do with physics.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  07:48:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
The more I read, the more it looks like "physics is a branch of science which is based upon human perceptions, human logic and human thought, thus making it no more or less accurate than any other human epistemology." That is post-modernism, pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with physics proper, and everything to do with the denial that science is a working method of gaining knowledge about the reality in which we live. It is "political correctness" taken to extremes, as it posits that it is somehow "unfair" to dismiss other methods of knowing as being less accurate than science. To a strict post-modernist (and I don't know if Lawrules is one or not), guessing, praying or having a vision are as good as getting us closer to the truth as strictly-controlled double-blind randomized studies.

Oh, and Lawrules is also playing around with dictionary definitions:
The scientific definition of evaporation is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat. By consequence, according to Hawking, black holes have also the characteristic of being liquid.
The above, of course, completely ignores what Hawking suggests, and also the fact that he is using "evaporates" in a new way. This isn't particularly post-modern, it's just ignorance in action.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  08:06:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

Hi filthy,

Yes, that was a great task and finally the Last Theorem of Fermat was resolved with success.

Please, I beg you something, this is just a little -lets say- favor.

The same joy of finding the way to resolve the Last Theorem of Fermat, I should like to be felt when I ask to resolve and prove that theorem using grains of rice.

In other words, to go beyond abstract mathematics and turn those numbers into real quantities of existing things.

I am skeptic that such task is possible.

I am founding my skepticism in the Law of Perception which helps me to discriminate ideas and imaginations from existing physical means.

I beg for your help in this.

Thank you.

I don't mean to be discourtious, but the rice bit sounds a lot like naval-staring and chanting, "Om..." to me.

I would much prefer to examine the literature so I'll get a better idea of what we're talking about, here. Until then, I'll have to reserve comment.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9669 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  08:11:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, and Lawrules is also playing around with dictionary definitions:
The scientific definition of evaporation is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat. By consequence, according to Hawking, black holes have also the characteristic of being liquid.
The above, of course, completely ignores what Hawking suggests, and also the fact that he is using "evaporates" in a new way. This isn't particularly post-modern, it's just ignorance in action.

Indeed. "The Universe in a Nutshell" is a book for the layman, and as such, physical events described in the book should reflects terminology in layman's terms. Hence, by using the word evaporate he is describing that the black hole is losing mass. A black hole being liquid is such an important property that Hawking would have mentioned it, had it been true.
Liquidity is a not a viable/possible property in a singularity, however, neutron stars should have an inner fluid.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  11:01:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
It seems your really need to work on your english, especially the words science, physics and skepticism.

You falsely assume that we are incapable of accepting new-ideas (correct ideas), when in fact we are the most likely to see them for what they are. Stop delaying and give us the information or go away.

Also I too find this extremely non-scientific.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.7 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000