Solar Fission

Tom was not a fan of GR, but he recognized its accuracy in the mathematical sense. Most of the objectionable parts of GR arise as a consequence of having inherited the concept of "space-time" from SR.

GR and SR are first and foremost mathematical models. (Newtonian gravity is also a math-only model.) Some attempts have been made over the years to attach physical significance to the equations of SR and GR, but those damn paradoxes keep making the water murky. Even the experts yell at each other over how to make the CORRECT physical interpretation.

Tom observed that if one used LR instead of SR as the starting point for GR, then GR would become more sensible. More understandable. Since LR has no Twins Paradox, neither would GR. And so on. But that is not the world we live in now so it does little good to dream of what-ifs.

DRP, via its Le Sageian gravity model, produces equations which are equivalent to those of GR. Without the speed-of-light limit and the paradoxes.

***

<b>[Solar Patroller]"... it can be said everything has a conceptual existence rather than a physical one ..."</b>

Maybe. Things with conceptual existence cannot exist without the presence of a conceiver. And a conceiver cannot exist without a precursor that has physical existence. One way to conceive of a conceiver is to imagine a thing that is part physical and part concept. But this smells very circular to me. So ...

We have much to learn.

Once the physical universe has evolved to produce a consciousness that is able to "conceive" of things that do not exist physically, then and only then it is possible for concepts to exist.

If that consciousness should cease to exist for any reason, so would all of its concepts.

Think about this for a while and then comment/critique it.

***

change/evolve over time
and eventually lead to

and they learn to conceive
(first of the physical things around them and
ultimately of things that are not physical)
both of which which lead to

All three of the things mentioned above are a part of reality. Things in each group are real, but not in the same way. You can stub your toe on a physical rock but not on a conceptual rock. Nevertheless conceptual rocks exist. And (push the envelope) you can conceive of stubbing your toe on either a real rock or a conceptual rock.

The monist idealist will respond by saying the physical does exist but as illusion. And I think there is no physical precursor--the physical and mental occur simultaneously and always existed. In biology, there is evolution of consciousness, but this is in the illusion of time. In reality there is no time. The physical and mental are as much a necessary contrast and continuum as up n down, right n left, hot n cold, etc., n as a continuum they are connected n form a unit n a basic unit, n as a unit 1 has to be illusion. Matter-energy can be reduced to motion n motion is an object in space and time, space n time are abstracts, n an object is motion, which is an object in space n time, etc., so there is infinite regress. In idealism the universe is abstract n is thought itself.

So I've heard. Solipsism and it's assorted variants always make me chuckle (and think). A lot and a little, respectively. It's not wise to be opposed to something you know nothing of.

Of course even under that model at least one of us has to be physical in order to be dreaming the rest of the universe. Any idea which one of us it is? I suspect it might be you.

So the order would still be physical, consciousness, conceptual. But the physical part would be a lot smaller.

Slopism (as I call it)?! That has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

What do u mean by <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's not wise to be opposed to something you know nothing of.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?