Black holes do not exist

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Luchito, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Yes, all objects are 3D objects, soon they have two sides...
    But this is not what we talk about.
    The projection of light on the retina produce an information giving only the 2D aspect of the 3D object.

    Not sure, some think that all informations in an black hole could be stored on his 2D surface.

    The mind interpret the image in 3D because there is a special dedicated neuronal network doing the work in the visual system of the brain. The brain can not see in 3D, it uses 2D informations to recreate 3D information.

    And he can be tricked...
    Look :
    Thats what you do with a sketch on a sheet of paper per example showing a cube "in 3D".
    The sketch is in 2D (thats for sure), but the brain invent perspective and let you think the figure represent something in 3D.
    But it is not, it is a sheet of paper...
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Mention the other 50% . Of mine . No problem .
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Two Dimensions can never exist . Physically . Can you not understand this ?

    What you see has depth . Distance .

    The molecules that make up the brain are Not a piece of paper . They have depth . Three Dimensional dimensions .
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    The piece of paper is a very thin piece of three dimensions . Seen .

    Hence it has a very shallow depth . Just illustration depth . But three dimensional nevertheless .
  8. river

    Expand this piece of paper by 1000 sheets , piled on top of another .

    The Three Dimensions become deeper than the original drawing on one sheet of paper . Naturally .

    And extends beyond the pile . A piece of paper is not 2D .

    2D can never be represented physically . Because it is always missing a dimension fundamental to the existence of All Things , Including Life .

    Hence in reality 2D will never ever really exist .
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    your comments suggest you have done no reading on this subject

    here is a starter for you
    Depth Perception
    3D is a cognitive process function like language
    thus the innate perception is 2D
    which then the brain compares the two 2D objects/perceptions & processes them with a language to render a resultant conceptual mental perception of the 3D physical world/item

    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  10. river

    2D objects never , ever exist , physically . Ever .
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2021
  11. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    You dont understand that i am not saying 2D physical objects exists.

    I dont know any physic proposition that would fully met the claim.
    So i propose, perhaps some quantum definition, and perhaps we could use the string theory to claim that 2D "objects" can be observed in our world.

    I think that your confusion about that comes from that you dont take in account that "exist" has nothing to do with our good sens of what reality is.
    If someone (a scientist i suppose) can propose a physic definition of a 2D physical object, this mean that "it exists".
    Nothing more, nothing less.
    If you cant admit this point, you cant understand scientific results and you will always be confused about what reality is (so you would do philosophy (i like philosophy, but it is not what we talk about here), not science).

    Thats the point.
    What you see... has no depth because it has no distance !

    If you were like the owl, you would have the ability to hear in 3D (using his brain) !
    We, on other side, can only hear in 3D restricted to left/right (so we can not distinguish very clearly up from down signals).

    With one ear, we and the owl, can partialy hear in 3D, but why are we not able to see in 3D ?
    Because when we hear, the signal (the sound) coming from distant source do not travel very fast.
    So we can distinguish little difference in the time of arriving of "some sound" coming from some object doing sound and have some partial 3D direct sens.
    But with light, the time of arrival are blured because all photons come at almost the same time when they come from a standard common source.

    Now, to gain better representation of how the sound is in 3D, we use our brain (like for the visual system).
    With 2 ears, we can so distinguish the left or right origin of "the sound" (that is composed of many sound waves...).
    Owl has "an ear" placed higher that the other on his face (its a hole like for every birds) and so het can also distinguish the up and low origin of the sound.
    We can not use the differential in the time of arriving of the sound wave like the owl, to distinguish the up and down origin of the sound.
    We use an other not so efficient system (related to the shape of the ear and the absorbsion of the sound wave by the flesh).

    Saying that, you see that the differential system that can permit to recognize directly the origin of the wave is not
    possible with light waves.
    Light is too fast and we dont see any difference in time arrival even if the objet would be 1 km tall.
    (We use the optical blur/clear system to do some distinction of course, but... it is not on the retina, but in the visual system so into the brain that these operations occur)

    The system used to see 3D for light, is to use the projection on the flat retine : And here we loose the information of the 3D origin of light.
    So no, we dont see in 3D, because we loose at first glance the 3D information because of the projection of the light on a flat support.

    Yes, probably, but it has nothing (or is very far related) to do with the problem.

    This discussion is interresting i think, because it help to understand what we talk about reality.
    Per example, here, we talk about waves (sound waves, light waves), but a wave has nothing in it (it is not a local self property like we could say about mass) that say where it comes from...

    Furthermore, wave is generaly composed by a tremedous amount of "particles" (so yes phonons and phtons are not the same but let say that), and if we want to talk more fundamentaly about the 3D ness or 3D ness of objects, we should, in my opinion, restrict our toughts to the particles.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Be warned. River is a, how should I put this, special case. You will get nowhere trying to explain anything to river. Many of us have tried and most gave up long ago.
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    = "Language" ?

    river appears to be stuck with these 2 concepts glued together for some reason
    almost like a religious belief might be
    but religious theological logic is closely aligned to scientific logic in its human interactive thought conceptualization
    all be them very different aspects of humanity

    they stick together awkwardly like odd pieces of leggo you dropped on the floor, & now can not pull apart and they don't match but are stuck by some small commonality.

    when the "desire to believe" has been so heavily invested into something to illicit emotional reward\it becomes highly difficult to unravel it inside a logic model that is not already lent up against a false wall for convenience

    be that ego, function or survivalism
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
  14. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    This is not a problem for me, i know that science is not the final and full comprehension of our world.
    So, in such, if he dont agree with someone who say that science can explain the world, he is right.
    But if he dont agree with someone who say that science is only a usefull way to act in this world, and deny some rational reasoning justified by facts, he is wrong.

    Most of scientists and many non sientists who only repeat what they have heard from scientists, dont know what science is capable of.
    They overestimate the capability of science.
    This is because, today, most scientist never had interest in philosophy (and are not interrested in epistemology) and did directly science for all pratical purpose (they are some sort of engineers).
    This is a new way to practice science (never seen 100 years ago).

    This is why paradoxically, science is actually in competition with religion and this is why people find religious peoples praticing science, self contradicting or "originals"..
    Science is now some new religion.
    You are asked to believe in science, as if all would be a question of belief (not of faith but who know what could come next

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )... and to choose between science and religion.
  15. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    You mean there could be some misundestanding of what we mean when we speak about 2D ou 3D information ?
    Yes, probably.
    Science is all about information expressed in term of concepts.
    We create the concepts within our toughts and for some we name and use theses concepts in logical affirmations, mostly in natural language.
    If i think about "a cat", without any langage, i can.
    It happen for this visual primary information in some lateral brain area (there is some "activation").
    What is interresting, is that the area activated as we think about (the visual part of) the cat object is the same when we actualy see a real cat (with our eyes).
    So there are primary concepts, like here the cat, that come from the experience of our sens.

    For most advanced being, like us, human, we can also use the cortex to associate a word to these concepts.
    This, by further logical association of words, so the language, permit to say anything without the need to have ever experienced the assumption before.
    So, 2D, 3D, those are concepts associated to words and their meaning depend of the experience of the individual and how he associate it to other words.
    I dont think we have, internaly, all the same conception of the 2D and 3D concepts, but we can use the mathematical definitions to talk about the same.
    Here, i was talking about the 2D and 3D information, so a chimarea permit by the language composed of the dimension (2,3,4... and so forth) and the information.
    This is not real, it is a chimaera, but usefull to understand why if we loose the infomations contained by 3D object during the projection onto the 2D retina, we can not access to this 3D information again in a reliable matter.
    We need to see the 2D objet from different point of view, so moving around, or we can use what we already believe we know about the 3D objet (like some real object we already know in real 3D world).
    But this is a non reliable reconstruction.
  16. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    That's not the issue. The problem is that it is near impossible to even have a rational debate with River.
    This is how a typical "conversation" goes:
    River: "A"
    You: An explanation as to why "A" is not a valid argument.
    River: "Then B."
    You: An explanation why "B" is also an invalid argument.
    River: " How about C?"
    You: Further explanation as to why "C" isn't correct either.
    River: Aha! But what about A?!
    Rinse and repeat...
  17. river

    Not right but not bad either .

    So then , lets start this rational discussion as of now .
  18. river

    Last statement

    Are you saying that three dimension is the non-reliable reconstruction ? To to clear here .
  19. river


    You will never physically see 2D object from any point of view , nor " moving around " . 2D can never physically exist , ever .
  20. river

    Until we understand this as a truth , we will continue to be missing a part of the Universe that we could understand .
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    River's brain is like a Pythagorean cup. Partly full it is OK

    Put to much in and it all drains out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. river


    Then challenge my rational .

    On what is A based ?
  23. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Because a part of the information included in 3D is lost while we process the projection on a 2D media (here, specificaly while the projection on the retinae, but it is a general issue with all projections toward lower dimension). We are not sure at 100% that what we know (using this 2D information) is what is "in reality" at distant place.
    We could be abused by some illusion (and believing there is a 3D object paint on a paper of sheet is already some sort of illusion, but we dont pay attention of it).
    By chance, our experience with comon objects permit us to understand (reconstruct) right in most cases.

    But think about that : If you were chained all your lifetime and could only see the shadows of objects at distance, could you understand the 3D dimension of the 3D objects, so reconstruct the missing information using the informations from the 2D shapes ?
    No, you can not gain information by moving around (or see the object rotate, same with other point of view).
    So, the 2D information is not reliable (this is a mathematical certain fact) and you would have to use guess (but by gessing, using theory then... you could some time understand right , but nothing is certain).

    Plato who was philosopher and mathematician knowed this already many centuries ago :

Share This Page