The Perceptional Law

[Realworld]

Hi,

I have news for you: The Perceptional Law.

---The Perceptional Law establishes that our physical senses can perceive the physical universe in its present time only.---

There are no exceptions for this law.

Is this "law" important in our lives, societies, scientific studies and similar approaches?

Yes indeed. This law is the unique tool which allowes us to discriminate fantasies and imaginations from reality.

Then, the current scientific theories based in time as a flexible dimension subjected to the behaviors of matter and energy, and the current theories which spread ideas about black holes and wormholes as time tunnels, those theories are pure imaginations.

The first step to delete those current and accepted scientific theories is to determine what time is. Today, the most great scientists still having problems with such definition plus still failing with the proper factual evidence to prove their statements.

How can they affirm that time dilates when they don't have any evidence of the existence of time?

With a simple presentation, The Perceptional Law will prove the perception of time as a reference only, and will give the guarantee to all the readers that when you come outside tonight and see the stars, you will have the complete confidence that you are not observing the universe as it was in its past, but, that you are observing the stars, galaxies, supernovas, etc in their current locations...in their present time.

[sharonbn]

Realworld,

I have old news for you:
Relying on your physical senses as proof of reality and the existence of physical objects (or lack thereof) is poor at best.

Your senses are highly sensitive to tricks played by your mind:
You can see things that are not there (for example, people lost in the desert have seen an oasis that wasn’t really there.)
You can hear things that are not there (For example, you will hear a Jet plane flying beyond the speed of sound after it already passed you by.)

Your senses are also extremely limited:
You see people and objects move on television – there is really no movement there. Just a series of static pictures presented to you at a rate of 24 pics per second. Television is just exploiting a limitation of your eye.
There are objects too small for your eyes to see (a Virus, for instance, cannot be seen even in the strongest microscope. Does that mean they do not exist?)
There are sounds that your ear cannot hear – but other animals do. Hunters use special whistle to call their dogs. When you blow that whistle – you hear nothing. The whistle makes a sound that’s too low for human ears. However, dogs seem to response to this non-existent sound.

Another problem – what a person perceives in his/her senses cannot always be shared by other people. For example – pain.

Another problem – When you dream - what reality do you perceive then?

And the madman? Is his perception of reality valid?

The French philosopher René Descartes already attacked this issue in the 17th cent. His conclusions were that you can actually rely on NOTHING outside your own existence. This is how he came by his famous statement: “I think, therefore I am”

By the way, I don't know about you, but when I go at nights outside and lift my head up - I don't see any stars or galaxies (I swear I don't know how a supernova looks like) I see all kinds of white and yellow, static and blinking little dots in the dark sky.
I think they are little flashlights and candle-lights that ferries put up in the skies.

I believe current and accepted scientific theories can rest asured.

[L@mplighterM]

not observing the universe as it was in its past, but, that you are observing the stars, galaxies, supernovas, etc in their current locations...in their present time.

What happened to the speed of light Realworld? You trying to rewrite physics or something?

All the other blabbering is nonsence.

[Realworld]

Excellent reply because you have posted several things which will delete the current theories of science in their base foundations ...if any of course.

Lets start with what you perceive and what you don't perceive.

All the current theories of physics are found correct or incorrect in base of the observations of their predictions. What those observations require?... You will hate this...the observations require our perceptions of them. How do you know that the clocks slow their functional work when are located in the top of a mountain? (Hawkings example in his book A Brief History of Time)...Well, actually you have to check the clock with your sense of sight.

Then, your reply contradicts itself with its final conclusions when it fails to use different tools than our senses.

But, I tell you more, actually no science is possible to be in existence without our senses, because without our senses your existence drops to extinction right away.

Then, rather than being an obstacle, the senses are your arms of survival. Without the physical senses you are nothing, you can't survive.

So, we can put aside the cheap philosophy posted in your reply and continue with the importance of The Perceptional Law in our lives.

Each individual has its own capacitity and/or capabilities of perception, there are some tresholds which won't allow us to perceive all the universe, but, so far, humanity has survived very well using their senses alone, and today, we have instruments and devices which allow us to perceive beyond our tresholds.

We must recognize that illusions are great part of in our daily perceptions, for example, everyday we see the Sun setting in the evenings, but actually that view is an illusion because planet Earth is rotating and our location is facing away from the Sun. The illusions actually are real events which are perceived differently by our senses.

But, those illusions are real events anyway.

Then, you have the phenomena called a mirage in where you see "water" far away and even you can see objects beyond that water being reflected by it. You can also take pictures of a mirage and you know that such images are mere illusions, but those illusions still optical effects caused by a real phenomena of reflection of light by a layer of heated air of varying density.

Then, you can live and survive very well with illusions.

What about hallucinations?... We have lots of problems with these phenomenas, because hallucinations are not based in real events perceived by our senses but imaginary events caused by our brains. Then, a person can imagine a bridge where none exists and cross the river and kill himself. Even the chicken crossed an existing road...

How it comes that the current scientific community is trying to sale the idea that you are perceiveing the "past of the universe" when such past of the universe doesn't exist anymore?

Can you trust such theories which contradict the simple phenomena of perception? Can you trust in those theories which are just made up ideas from the brain of some individuals?

Can you travel to the past when those atoms which where in one place in that present, have moved away?... Can you "perceive" the fantasy here?...

If you don't, this is the topic in where you will find how the current fantasies of several scientific theories can't be taken seriously and are the great error ever made by humanity.

When the current theories were made, their authors never tried to investigate what time is, so far, it appears that they thought that time was a dimension, and that such dimension was measured by clocks. Today, thanks to the discovery of The Perceptional Law, such ideas are found without factual evidence and are found obsolete in front of reality.

To deny reality is to deny the existence of this topic and the existence of this forum and web site, the communication systems and etc, etc, etc... I will suggest you to define reality, to define time and to prove your definitions with factual evidence.

If you lack of definition and evidence, then, your position is invalid.

Best wishes.

[L@mplighterM]

What has this blabbering nonsence to do with Israel?

[Realworld]

What happened to the speed of light Realworld? You trying to rewrite physics or something?

All the other blabbering is nonsence.


Speed of light?... Are you talking about the observed "average" of light speed perceived by the instruments inside our atmosphera -the assumed speed of 186,000 mps- or the faster speed observed with the gain-assisted superluminal light propagation?... Please specify which one of those speeds.

Physics is not a established thought carved in a rock but the ascent of knowledge about our universe, then, when you have to rewrite physics...just do it...

[L@mplighterM]

Wrong forum for this nonsence.

[Realworld]

What has this blabbering nonsence to do with Israel?

Isn't this a "General discussions" forum?

Is Israel exempt from science?

If you are not interested in this topic and no offenses are made writing about The Perceptional Law, I don't see why you get so upset...

[L@mplighterM]

Sorry my mistake.

[sharonbn]

All the current theories of physics are found correct or incorrect in base of the observations of their predictions. What those observations require?... You will hate this...the observations require our perceptions of them.
As much as I hate this, I admit it is absolutely true.
However, I will say this: Your “perceptional law” is nothing more than another theory aimed at interpreting what we perceive around us. You see the light coming from the stars. Your interpretation is that the light represents present situation. This is not a “law” but a “theory”.

But, I tell you more, actually no science is possible to be in existence without our senses
Not true. Mathematics (I mean Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, The study of Numbers, Calculus, etc.) is not based on any empirical experiments, but rather on pure logic. Other science fields, such as Physics and Chemistry use mathematical laws and formulas to prove Physical and chemical theories.

We must recognize that illusions are great part of in our daily perceptions, for example, everyday we see the Sun setting in the evenings, but actually that view is an illusion because planet Earth is rotating and our location is facing away from the Sun.
I don’t understand why you choose to accept Copernican astronomy but reject Einstein’s principle of the invariance of the speed of light. If you choose to accept this principle, than it is simple mathematics to show that it takes time for light to travel from the starts to Earth and to our eyes.

How it comes that the current scientific community is trying to sale the idea that you are perceiving the "past of the universe" when such past of the universe doesn't exist anymore?
It is no less valid than what you are trying to sell (in fact, a lot more valid)

Can you trust such theories which contradict the simple phenomena of perception?
Again, I will state you self contradiction: You see the sun revolving around Earth, yet you choose to believe a theory that contradicts this perception over another theory that supports this perception.
Similarly, you claim to see galaxies and supernovas in the sky – all of which are results of astronomical theories based upon analysis of the phenomenon of “shifting light spectrum” of light coming from the stars.

When the current theories were made, their authors never tried to investigate what time is, so far, it appears that they thought that time was a dimension, and that such dimension was measured by clocks. Today, thanks to the discovery of The Perceptional Law, such ideas are found without factual evidence and are found obsolete in front of reality.

Most physical theories, when they were conceived by their authors, relied upon some mathematical proof. For example, when Nicolaus Copernicus wrote in 1513 his theory regarding the earth revolving around the sun, he presented some mathematical equations to state how he came about his conclusions. Prior to Copernicus, Ptolemy’s view of the sun revolving around the earth was backed also by some very complex mathematical formulas to explain the motion of the planets.

Based upon the works of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton developed his theories in the areas of optics (regarding the nature of light being the movement of particles rather than waves) and physics (universal gravitation.) His book, “Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica” or “Principia” as it is always known, is recognized as the greatest scientific book ever written.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his work “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” which became known as “The special theory of relativity”. Einstein was able to debunk Newtonian physics and show, via mathematical formulas, that all measurements of time and space depend on judgments as to whether two distant events occur simultaneously. This led him to develop a theory based on the principle of relativity, that says physical laws are the same in all inertial reference systems, and the principle of the invariance of the speed of light, which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

I await to see a mathematical formula that supports your theory.

If you lack of definition and evidence, then, your position is invalid.
I agree. I believe current scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe (The “big bang” theory, a result of “The expanding universe” theory, which attempts to explain the phenomenon of “shifting light spectrum”). The principle of the invariance of the speed of light (which means that it takes time for light to travel) – all of these theories are backed by Mathematical proofs. These proofs are NOT the result of empirical experiments and therefore cannot be falsified through such experiments. They can only be exchanged with another theory by showing flaws in the mathematical proof.
In other words, Ptolemy’s Astronomy was debunked by Copernicus by means of invalidating the mathematical basis of the theory, NOT by an empirical experiment.

PS
Go here (http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/index.html) to see a refreshong look at the theory of the expanding universe through a simple question - Why is the sky dark at night?

Peace on earth :)

[pardon]

there are no facts just impressions...

[Realworld]

As much as I hate this, I admit it is absolutely true.
However, I will say this: Your “perceptional law” is nothing more than another theory aimed at interpreting what we perceive around us. You see the light coming from the stars. Your interpretation is that the light represents present situation. This is not a “law” but a “theory”.

I must explain why The Perceptional Law is a phisical law. A Law is a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena. Specifically in physics, a law is a property of a physical phenomenon, or a relationship between the various quantities or qualities which may be used to describe a phenomenon, that applies to all members of a broad class of such phenomena, without exception.

While a physical theory is just an attempt to explain a certain class of physical phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of some primitive assumptions.
A simple example about a theory is Einsten's theories in which he attempted to explain some phenomenas by deducing that clocks can measure time, and, his primitive assumptions were that time was a dimension.

When The perceptional Law establishes that your physical senses perceive the physical universe in its present time only, this rules over the micro and macro universe. Regardless of size, speed and distance -you put your conditions- , everything you observe will be in its present time only.

Not true. Mathematics (I mean Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, The study of Numbers, Calculus, etc.) is not based on any empirical experiments, but rather on pure logic. Other science fields, such as Physics and Chemistry use mathematical laws and formulas to prove Physical and chemical theories.

Good point and lets see how correct is your position. I will make a gift to your statement, I will say that thoughts (wisdom, knowledge. etc) existed before us. Happy?... Well, before you born, knowledge was in existence, but how can you adquire such knowledge without listening to the teacher, without reading, without writing, without eating, etc, etc??? You need the senses to develop mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc, etc... Please, if this reply sounds crude or cruel, my intentions are just to wake you up to reality. With all the knowledge of the universe in your brain, you can't express yourself without your senses. Lets add one more gift... You born with a hard disc with all that information, but you still need to comunicate and check the universe around to prove yourself correct...you need your senses.

Now, there is a difference between mathematics alone and reality, for example, you can resolve the Last Theorem of Fermat with numbers, but you can't perform the same using rice grains. Otherwise, please ask for such mathematical equation to become a physical reality using one object replacing each number.

I don’t understand why you choose to accept Copernican astronomy but reject Einstein’s principle of the invariance of the speed of light. If you choose to accept this principle, than it is simple mathematics to show that it takes time for light to travel from the starts to Earth and to our eyes.

Mathematics alone calls for perfection, but...our universe is not perfect... Actually our universe is not evolving either..it is just degenerating. For religious fellows who love science, it is written in the beginning that light wasn't perfect but "good". And good is not a synonymous of perfection. Einstein was incorrect when he assumed that vacuum was perfect, and you can call to any institution or agency of space exploration and they will inform you that there isn't a perfect vacuum.

Light takes time to travel, but actually you need to learn the difference between perceiving the source and perceiving the effects. That is the key.

Again, I will state you self contradiction: You see the sun revolving around Earth, yet you choose to believe a theory that contradicts this perception over another theory that supports this perception.
Similarly, you claim to see galaxies and supernovas in the sky – all of which are results of astronomical theories based upon analysis of the phenomenon of “shifting light spectrum” of light coming from the stars.

Very simple, illusions are real events interpreted with several opinions or variations, while hallucinations are the product of an imagination with no real background. The past is not real anymore, it is just the past, those atoms have moved and are now in different positions/locations. To say that you can see them when they were in a determinated location millions of years ago is to lean on hallucinations. You can't see something which is not real, you just can't see something which is not there anymore.

Now, understanding that the stars are located right there in where you sight them, there you have a real background. For example, the simple fact that the Doppler Effect can determinate a car, storm, planet, star, etc.. motion with reference to our position, it is because those are existing objects now and can be detected as real. Can the Doppler Effect detect a star which doesn't exist anymore?... Only in the dreams of somebody else...

---I will continue in another posting---

[Realworld]

Most physical theories, when they were conceived by their authors, relied upon some mathematical proof. For example, when Nicolaus Copernicus wrote in 1513 his theory regarding the earth revolving around the sun, he presented some mathematical equations to state how he came about his conclusions. Prior to Copernicus, Ptolemy’s view of the sun revolving around the earth was backed also by some very complex mathematical formulas to explain the motion of the planets.

Based upon the works of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton developed his theories in the areas of optics (regarding the nature of light being the movement of particles rather than waves) and physics (universal gravitation.) His book, “Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica” or “Principia” as it is always known, is recognized as the greatest scientific book ever written.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his work “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” which became known as “The special theory of relativity”. Einstein was able to debunk Newtonian physics and show, via mathematical formulas, that all measurements of time and space depend on judgments as to whether two distant events occur simultaneously. This led him to develop a theory based on the principle of relativity, that says physical laws are the same in all inertial reference systems, and the principle of the invariance of the speed of light, which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

I await to see a mathematical formula that supports your theory.

Wonderful. I see that you also has fell in the wrong understanding of physics when you think that numbers precede reality. You has mentioned theories. Lets use a law or a principle:

Please, demonstrate with numbers the principle of causality, in where an event cannot precede its cause.Your formula must apply to all the phenomenon which occur in the universe. Be advice that I am not asking for separate formulas applying to a certain phenomena each time, I am asking you a formula which applies to all the phenomenon.

It must apply the same with planetary encounters having electromagnetic forces in the collisions as well with hitting your dinner table with your elbow, as well with having a baby by a teenager, as well with light propagation in birefringet media.

I await to see a mathematical formula that supports that principle.


I agree. I believe current scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe (The “big bang” theory, a result of “The expanding universe” theory, which attempts to explain the phenomenon of “shifting light spectrum”). The principle of the invariance of the speed of light (which means that it takes time for light to travel) – all of these theories are backed by Mathematical proofs. These proofs are NOT the result of empirical experiments and therefore cannot be falsified through such experiments. They can only be exchanged with another theory by showing flaws in the mathematical proof.
In other words, Ptolemy’s Astronomy was debunked by Copernicus by means of invalidating the mathematical basis of the theory, NOT by an empirical experiment.

Not necessarily, the mathematics used were made in accordance with the straigh and angular observations (geometry) rather than imaginations. No one of the former scientists argued that they were calculating the Sun's position as it was eight minutes ago. The planets and comets and more where calculated according to what they saw as a present universe. The simple fact that today the seconds are calibrated by the natural vibration frequency of the atom of caesium rather than the division made from the observation of the rotation of Earth up to seconds is because the rotation of Earth has lots of variables. Actually, rather than using "relativity" to obtain a "perfect second" arrived by equations, the best solution is using observable (empirical)physical events.

Lets see now, Einstein was able to challenge reality with his idea of time as a flexible dimension subjected to the speed of objects and or gravitation of bodies. Nor him or one of his followers have ever defined time in order to know what is it...

At least you can "see" the light beam and know that such energy/particle exists, you also can measure the known dimensions of objects, but clocks are not connected directly or indirectly to time, so, are you sure clocks can measure time and that all that stuff of relativity is in accord with reality?

So far I can tell you that such theories appear so far, to be nothing but pure propaganda. The basic and solid definitions and measures must be proved in order to accept those theories as scientific. You can make a theory about the beginning of the universe but always with the recognition that all those calculations are pure assumptions. You cannot lean on those calculations "as real" because you never experimented such event, you are just assuming in your theories. Actually, our view of the universe is like the blind man with the elephant.

It is sad to say this but with relativity, each evidence presented to back up these theories has been nothing but pre-conceptions pushed in the results to make those theories valid at any cost. A review of such evidence can demonstrate you that pre-conceptions were the rule rather than an impartial and real interpretation of the results.

Do you know the difference between observing the source and observing the effects?...

Best wishes.