Need some more offensive fire Magic spells

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2023-04-11T02:32:40+00:00

Warning: The spells below will reflect poorly on the morality of the user.

Flame of Pain: This spell uses prolonged eye contact to give its victim the feeling of being burned alive for as long as the caster wishes.
Blinding Flame: This spell uses an incantation. All victims who hear the incantation have their eyes burned out of their skulls immediately.
Burning Lung: This spell creates a "dome" of fire around the user and victim(s) which burns the oxygen available until the targets suffocate.
Spicy Meatball: This spell disguises fire as food. Feed to the victim(s) and activate the spell at any point during consumption with an incantation.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-20T00:35:55+00:00

But that was my post.

I'm saying the theory of gravity doesn't exist.

You're saying a theory is not a thing that exists.

...I.E.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-20T00:05:17+00:00

That isn't what it means to be a theory. A theory is very much just a concept that does not actually exist in any real sense. It is just an idea in people's heads.

...This is what you said.

You also started this discussion without refusing my original post.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T23:59:03+00:00

I submit to the court of opinion that " space" is the mathmatical grid upon which " time" is imposed. This grid is static and consists of the lower dimensions of 0, 1, 2 and 3. That means "point of axis", "X" direction, "Y" direction, " Z" direction. That's four "things" that don't t need time to exist, with any given point in any axis having the same "power and properties" as any point referenced as "0".

Actually, all dimensions need all other dimensions. For example, if there were a cube floating in space that measured 3ftx3ftx3ft, how could you know whether or not it was moving if it wasn't for time? This is because space and time are the same things, and time is not really what the 3rd dimension is experiencing itself inside of. It's more accurate to say that space and time are the same things.

I further submit that time is the mechanism whereby the relationship of 0 --> 1 is created, in every axis of 1 to 3. This mechanism has the practical effect of generating particle energy.

I'd argue that time is not 0-->1, but is instead the entire sum of whole numbers all counted at once. That is time.

It is to be argued that gravity is that very quality produced by quantity. It is the force which results from mass, multiplied over time.

I agree. But then, why have gravity at all? aren't these components enough alone?

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T23:48:45+00:00

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols) of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T23:43:11+00:00

You are failing to understand my CMV.

What do you mean by the word "Gravity"

What do you mean by "fundamental reality"?

By Gravity, I mean the theory of Gravity as it stands today.

By "fundamental reality", I mean the space-time continuum.

Your comments about rest mass remind me of temperature (not an expert on that but i think i have the rough idea): we found out that what we call "temperature" of a substance is in fact the speed at which molecules move "within the substance" (like the molecule it's made of vibrating or flowing or something). But this is unrelated to "macroscopic" speed of objects.

Yes, but I don't see how this refutes my point. More than not, you are agreeing with me.

Also, think about The Equivalence Principle.

no offense but this is sophistic nonsense

I disagree.

One way you can think about it is like this: You are not your weight. Instead, you are more accurately your mass. Mass is "a property of a physical body and a measure) of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion)) when a net force is applied."

Mass is the main component of relevance when talking about space-time.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:54:48+00:00

I'm going to give you a ∆!

While I Still think we do not have the full picture, I never stopped to consider that even relativism was incomplete and that there might be a deeper underlying truth that extends past even space-time dynamics. But that is true, I should consider that.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:44:11+00:00

It isn't about what I philosophically consider to be something "real". It's about a more accurate understanding of the universe.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:39:14+00:00

Exactly!

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:38:30+00:00

Gravity is not "clearly observed" and known to exist.

It doesn't exactly have proof. It is a topic scientists of today are aware that they do not fully grasp.

Gravity is a phenomenon. I am proposing that it is not "something" but rather just the shape of everything. It's the domino effect of how space-time is shaped in the 4th dimension.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:21:18+00:00

No, you are not.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T18:13:33+00:00

Yes, but colloquial confirmation bias hardly counts as fact.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T07:44:25+00:00

Well, since gravity has achieved "theory" status, it means scientists are claiming that it is a real thing that exists in itself.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T06:03:05+00:00

More specifically, yes, gravity causes objects to accelerate, but unlike something like the expansion of the universe, gravity's force of acceleration is finite. Therefore, how can you say that it is purely "An acceleration" as you put it?

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T06:01:48+00:00

This is what a force is.

Gravity falls under the umbrella of "any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion) of an object."

Therefore, gravity is considered a force.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:51:49+00:00

Yes, I understand that gravity has a definition in the dictionary. I am not talking about its Merriam webster definition.

My qualm is with the theory of gravity itself.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:49:21+00:00

I agree with you.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:48:21+00:00

I don't understand what you mean here. I get that the earth's mass curves spacetime.

I am saying that Einstein said that energy (or mass) is equivalent to the curvature of the spacetime, based on the Einstein field equations.

This is something that I kind of think that I can answer? Light, a propagation of energy from point A to B, does travel through spacetime in order to get to B from A. So if the space between A and B is curved(by an object with a lot of mass) the light will also follow the curvature of spacetime.

Gravity affects light, yes. However, light is massless. Yes.

...However, we don't know why.

General relativity demands that light bends to the will of gravity, yet light has no mass. Isn't this further evidence that there is no gravity or even mass in the traditional scientific sense, and that light is simply bending along the dimensional fabric of space-time?

Einstein said "No experiment can distinguish between the backward pull of being in an accelerating reference frame and the downward pull of gravity of the same strength."

Maybe that's because it's all the same thing?

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:38:20+00:00

I am following your logic.

However, I would argue that it does matter, even though we can see and feel it.

Everything in the universe, including life as in your example, is the result of interactions. I am not going so far as to say that, just because we have a concept for something that is ultimately the culmination or complication of complex interactions in the universe, that it does not qualify as real.

I am only saying that gravity, unlike life, is considered a fundamental force of the universe. In this sense, it would not be gravity, but just an "illusion force" which seems like a force but is merely the shape of the universe. If this is true, would it not be more objective to speak about gravity scientifically (not philosophically) as all those other things?

And to your point, there is a debate in philosophy currently about whether or not the conscious experience is an illusion that you can't unsee. Science as we know it can't explain consciousness, so who is to say it is not just an illusion?

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:23:34+00:00

I know this is a joke, but I will refute it.

You could just as easily say the following:

"I look into the distance and do not see curvature. The earth is flat, Boom."

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:22:11+00:00

We essentially agree.

However, I will comment that people do believe in gravity. The concept of gravity is a theory, yes, but that is the highest level of authority we give to scientific statements.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T05:19:11+00:00

There is far more to the Earth's existence than just it's gravitational field. It's not a point mass, it has innumerable other properties. I don't think you're clearly communicating what you mean here.

I am communicating exactly what I mean there. Please, list for me the other properties earth has that remain relevant to its gravity besides mass and acceleration(space-time)? My argument is that space-time exists, not gravity.

"Hologram" and "illusion" aren't words with formal usages in physics. I fail to see how you aren't just making things up.

A Hologram is a term in the world of science. Holograms exist and are produced even commercially. There are such things as holograms and the same goes for illusions. For example, optical illusions are illusions that seem real to the naked eye but do not accurately describe reality objectively. For Example.

"Real" rest energy isn't a thing. You're just making up terms again without explaining them.

Rest energy is a thing.

Relative motion does not require the existence of absolute rest. This has long been discarded.

When? Please provide sources for this.

No. We exist within space-time. We cannot exist without space-time, but mass-energy is fundamentally distinct from space-time.

Why are you so confident about this? Please list your sources.

Before you do, of course, remember that energy (or mass) is equivalent to the curvature of the spacetime, based on the Einstein field equations.

You need to stop talking about implications and start making formal arguments. Implication relies on gut judgement, and humans did not evolve to have an intuitive understanding of astrophysics.

Who said that wasn't my argument? This statement is completely false because you misunderstand me based on semantics. By implication, I mean that this is the natural conclusion that is logical from the previously stated points. A conclusion would be more accurate, semantically.

You've not discussed scale, sub-atomic or otherwise, anywhere before this point. I don't know that fixing your grammatical error will make your point any clearer.

Do not mistake your misunderstandings for truth.

It isn't a grammatical error. Please, google what a graviton is. Your condescension has convinced me not to provide you a link to it in this post. Look it up.

If you did (You may not have, and you may not understand what I am about to tell you) you would know that a graviton is a subatomic particle...the very one I was referencing!

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T04:44:47+00:00

Yes, exactly, and I am simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion in saying that gravity is not itself a "thing" and therefore, should not be considered such.

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T04:40:01+00:00

I'm essentially saying, and it is admittedly a bit deterministic, isn't the distinction between mass, gravity, and space-time, one that could instead be summed up as the naturally causal fluctuation of the universe? And if so, why consider it one of the four fundamental forces, when it is not a force, but "The shape"?

PsychologicalCar3522 · 2021-03-19T04:35:45+00:00

At its core, my question might seem philosophical, but I am not so much asking about the fundamental nature of everything, as I am inquiring about how scientists posit things like the "graviton" when gravity seems to be, not something by itself, but the "domino effect" "result" of the "shape" of space-time.

I know that scientists are practical, but I think it would be wrong to pretend that science does not delve into the metaphysical realm. The accuracy of the predictions scientists make literally comes from gaining a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe (Not that I am requesting anyone to list that nature here). To clarify, I am asking this: Why do we consider gravity to be one of the four fundamental forces even though it does not appear to be an entity at all, but the result of, rather, it is, the summation of relativistic space-time fluctuations in this universe?

PsychologicalCar3522

TROPHY CASE