Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2005

xxein:  That's just an off-the-wall comment as to how we tend to be
anthropocentric.  Seemingly, everything "has to" be described as to how
it relates to us, our lives and measurements that we choose to do to
make a sense of our existence.

The universe has no such explanatory purpose and exists as itself with
preemptory physical laws that define its timely behavior.

We tend to make up and believe reasons for how and why things happen by
over-generalizing and grouping (physical) behaviors to satisfy a "human
perspective" of knowledge.  That is why we make measurements, but we
fail to realize how subjective those measurements really are.

The Doppler effect of light with a time dilation is a perfect example.
One's FOR measures it to be such, but another, along the same line of
travel (with different velocity), measures it differently.  SO - we
make a generalized law that describes the relation of these different
measurements.  We start to get non-physical with the addition of
velocities and say that it is ok because we have a math that describes
it.  Instead, we should follow the physicalness of it and realise that
no generalization of a FOR can "assume" a rest/objective position wrt
measuring speed of light as a one-way measure.  But both the derived
math AND the physicalness can support the notion of the reciprocal
two-way measure of the speed of light to obtain a high degree of
accuracy for the speed of light.  Just because we cannot determine a
physical motion wrt light, it doesn't physically follow that we can
ignore it.  Nor does a mathematical substitute form the objective
reality.  It can only form a subjective relationship.

There are those that are completely satisfied with the subjectively
measured mathematical relationship (so what is sex?) I don't deny that
relationship but it cannot inherently form a proper understanding of
the actual physics this universe, under which, this universe operates.
We might as well vote whether or not we will accept the functionality
of this universe.  But even that does not give us the leeway to
describe it as anything other than its intrinsic self (anthropocentric
thoughts, anyone?).

Textbook?  It is written.  We are too illiterate to read it.

So let's go back to that sex thing.  Reduce it to a pin-prick.  A
self-awareness.  Life.  A self-regulated field of energy that can grow
(remain the same or deteriorate).  All external stress is not equal and
some is rejected to maintain the original field.  Other stresses are
allowed to add energy or substitute existing micro-fields and thus
change the overall field to more, or less, energy (an addition to
original complexity and still remaining sensitive to entropy).

There are local changes that occur in this universe that preserve the
global entropy and seem to increase energy on a local scene
temporarily.  How does this communicate?  What is the basic foundation
of entropy besides an expanding universe?

At what level does a pin-prick in a micro-field of energy give it an
understanding of the rest of the universe?  Should I tell you how to
raise your kids, also?

Why does the universe show us a timely occurrence by virtue of light?
If you want to answer by invoking a god, that is your own decision to
make.

The universe is simple.  It is our anthropocentric view of it that
causes problems.