OK, if we're going to use this warp engine idea then what's pushing the deformation in space along, there's 2 reasons why you can't go faster than light, but the main one is there just isn't enough energy in the universe
Printable View
OK, if we're going to use this warp engine idea then what's pushing the deformation in space along, there's 2 reasons why you can't go faster than light, but the main one is there just isn't enough energy in the universe
Sam,
Well im not a hardcore math loving person ;) there for just answer me these questions three:
What do you mean room?
Are you saying that there is a finite space in which every reality/time/etc exists?
And is this (i assume) equation proven or (for the sake of the entire post) disproven, or is it a theory?
Kedaman,
Do you mean telekinesis is incompatible with our reality? (Our system doesn't have the correct drivers? :) )
As for the belief in aliens...The Drake equation. It just doesn't make sence that we are alone in the universe. A mighty big waste of space dont you think? Or maybe the aliens are us...just in the future. I'm sure you'e heard of UFO's? Most I belive are hoaxes, some are military related, but then again you never know.
And what is THGTTG?
Everyone,
(Very dumb and out of the blue question)
Does any one here work for JPL or 'Skunkworks'?
[Edited by Cbomb on 04-29-2000 at 07:52 PM]
The Idea is that some infinities are bigger than others, 2 infinities are the same "Size" if there is a way of matching every item in one group with every Item in the other, for example you can show that there are the same number of even numbers as there are numbers.
1 goes with 2
2 goes with 4
3 goes with 6
...
n goes with 2n
because there is no even number not in this list and no number not in the other list you have mached every number with an even number, so there must be the same number of numbers as even numbers.
This Idea was put forwards by a guy called George Cantor in about 1400 and nobody has come up with a resonoble objection.
I actually got something wrong, they would all fit in an infinite number of dimensions, just nut in any finite number of dimensions, but if there was an infinite number of dimensions then 2 points could be in the same place, a finite distacne apart and an infinite distance apart at the same time (try doing pythagoras in infinate dimensions) which is just silly.
you can show that evry point on any number of dimensions can be mapped to a unique reality, if we consider the number of decisions made, but no matter how many dimensions you have there are not enough points to mach one with every possibility of things that could happen.
Sam: I have thought about that, but how do the do in startrek then`? Can you explain that one? An how do u expain those aliens we have seen so often? Ok, i give up on that one, until they have come up with one new. BTW how much energy are we talking about? eW? 10^21W? If we minityarize into a molecule size, how much energy would we need then?
Chomb: Read my last post about THGTTG. I think there's infinite space, almost all of it vacuum. the matter have just not had enough time to expand over it all. only 16 billion years, and that is c*16*10^9=48*10^17 which is 4.8 exameter in radius according to Sam. I'm not sure if have the values correct, correct me if not.
That's a big waste of space, 0% of it is vacuum. Why would there be aliens in vacuum? There's not a chance that there are aliens, if God didn't want there to be. I think if there were aliens, then we would be brothers, like related by somesort of microbacteria that spread out over universe and then accidentally landed on earth and the other(s) alien planets.
I do belive that we must have some kind of cosmic tie that relates us (if they are there). But why would Earth be the only planet with life on it? Can life be so rare that it is only blessed upon one planet in any given reality? I dont think so. What do you say?
Cbomb, we think alike.
There is o way possible that Earth is the only planet with life on it. One scientist predicted that there was 10,000 sources of intelligent life in our galixy alone.
Think about the size of the universe compared to even our own galixy. There must be some sort of intelligent life out there. Even if it's 10^1000 lightyears away.
I believe that there are aliens around. They could even be humans living in a distant planet far far away. Scientists say the you need heat the support life and you need oxygen to support life, but what the hell do they know about other life. Other life may not give a care for oxygen. They may not care about heat either.
Another thought about Aliens
I also believe that the ancient Egyptian pyrminds were a realted with aliens in some way, that had links or something. As far back as 5000 BC, the Egyptians had etchings of UFO's in their pyrminds. Here's another astonishing fact: In the ancient pyrmids, they had carved an aircaft out of solid gold. Scientists didn't know what it was until the 1940's when it was identified as the Delta Wing Jet. This EXACT modal was made about 4000-5000 years before the craft was invented. This means that they egyptians had contact with an advanced civilization or even an ancient advanced civilization on earth that was wiped out.
And, like you said, that 10,000 is only counting the possibility of Carbon based life. What about Silicon? Imagine a distant planet with an atomosphere of Methane (ick!) the life there could be huge crystal structures that hardly ever grow and have life spans of over a thousand years. If we did discover something like this on a visit to some planet we wouldn't recognise this as life at all. We would think it is just some rocks.
Or how about electromagnetic life? I'm not sure how this would work but it seems possible. (I took this one from Virus)
Exceeding speed of light
I just come up with the thought about making warp technology possible in smallscale at nanometer level. If there's no way to speed up space large as spaceships would need to exceed c, then why not at smallest possible scale. You may think we cannot minityarize ourselves, but (i have watched too much on trekkies) we can similar to teleporter technology, just break down into particles and go trough a starlane of warped space. To keep the starlane online we just need to put it cycling between some points ie some planets in our nearby starsystems and we cant go trough that starlane consuming no energy at all, and while the starline is not producing any friction, it's not consuming any energy either. This maybe sounds dramatically strange and impossible, so give me you thoughts about it
I don't think it makes very much sense
There is too much here to reply to...
So what I thought I would do is paraphrase for you all some currently held scientific beliefs which I have read from science journals at University.
1. How big is the Universe?
This is determined by the total sum energy of the universe. It has 3 possibilities :
+ve
The universe BENDS space such that it is a hypersphere that turns in on itself. You can travel in ANY direction and end up where you started from. If this is true then the Universe is NOT infinate and asking "what exists outside that?" is an invalid question because the term "outside" has no point of reference here. As a result of its inward bend it will reach a threshhold where its matter cannot sustain an outward motion and will collapse in on itself. (Repeated BigBang theory)
Zero
The universe is actually FLAT. Space is neither bent in or out. We don't KNOW what lies beyond it but it would be assumed that it is a void of some kind. The universe may not have been created by a big bang but by a reaction of positive and negative plasma (Plasma theory)
[i]-ve[/]i
The universe BENDS space outward, like a hyperbola. As a result of this it is continuously expanding (internally that is, increasing the distance between everything NOT expanding into a void) and eventually everything will be so far apart eventually the universe will die a slow death (Entropy theory)
2. Can we travel faster than light?
Scientists have actually found particles that travel faster than the speed of light. As the theory of light travel is based on the MASS of an item (thus making it infinately massive at the speed of light), these particles which have ABSOLUTELY NO MASS travel beyond the speed of light with ABSOLUTELY NO TIME DISTORTION.
3. Possibility of Time Travel
It is true that time dilates for entities with mass travelling closer to the speed of light. This effect however is RELATIVE and only directed FORWARDS. The example was given of a 20 year period where one person is travelling at light speed. One ages 20 years while the other ages only 3 years. Nobody has time travelled!! Nobody has gone BACKWARDS in time... they have simply changed the flow of time (it is STILL forward) for them
4. Silicon Based Life
Recent scientific evaluation has suggested that Silicon based life would be impossible.
Why? As carbon based life forms our main substance for survival is WATER (H20). This interaction with our glucose chain produces Carbon Dioxide and Water. In a silicon based form of life the process would create Silicon Dioxide and COULD NOT produce Water as a constituant.
This it would have to use another liquid instead... BUT. Water is such a VERY special substance in our universe.
1. Water is the ONLY liquid whose SOLID form is lighter than its liquid form (Ice floats).
It is because of this that it is possible for life to exist. In cold areas (which MOST of the universe is) ice forms on the surface and FLOATS. This provides a unique environment where no further freezing will occur (like at our polar cap where the water below the ice sheets are FAR below zero but do not freeze).
If it was ANY other liquid element it would freeze and sink to the bottom, thus allowing the top layer to freeze again and the cycle would repeat until the entire planet is completely frozen. And we all know life cannot form if it cannot even MOVE!!!
Now here are some of my own opinions based on some things people have said :
a. God is the simplest answer (kedaman)
You are telling me that the simplest answer to our existance in the universe is that a sentient extra-universal entity made the decision to create an entire universe and "PROGRAM" every single physical law, chemical reaction, sub-atomic interaction, intellectual thought, pre-destined eventuality and sentient inhabitant????
That is NOT simple at all!!!
The most SIMPLEST answer is that WE JUST ARE.
b. Us being 1 in a Zillion is just silly
When you ARE 1 in a Zillion of COURSE you think its silly... because as far as we are concerned we are a 100 in a 100 chance of being here and NOT 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being here. Our tiny and feable human minds cannot COMPREHEND this and so because we think we are a 100% chance of existing we postulate that SOMETHING must have created us.
We become egotistical because we think we were MEANT to be here and that we have a PURPOSE in being here.
It took the wright brothers SEVERAL tries before flying... does that mean we were not MEANT to fly because it didn't happen the first time? How do you know that the Human race hasn't started up several HUNDRED times before and only NOW have we been successful?
c. Proof by Contradiction (Sam)
This is a MATHEMATICAL proof only. It has no place in the real world or in science. You have to stop applying mathematical principles to our world... WE designed mathematics... WE came up with the rules... and we refined them to our own specifications.
Is there anywhere in the universe where there is the magical number i Which is the Square Root of -1?
Of course not. We made it up, and then applied our OWN rules of validation to prove it. Science doesn't work like that.
Proof by Elimination. Oh please!!! We don't know ALL the possibilities so eliminating a couple hundred doesn't mean the 101st one is correct!!!
d. Religous people have a mental deficiency.
I think ALL life is an abnormality. It certainly isn't the most common thing in our universe, in fact to our knowledge to date it is the ONLY time it has existed in our universe.
That makes us "in opposition to what is normal"... otherwise known as ABNORMAL.
We are NOT natural... that has been proved by the fact that we no longer abide by the laws of nature. We don't die when we were meant to, we change our own genetics, we live in environments that are not hospitable. Everything nature defines for everything else we ignore.
So when I say religious beliefs is a deficiency I am not being cruel or insulting (yeah I know it doesn't look that way). What I am trying to say is that when a sentient being has to credit its existance, purpose and direction to a "Higher and intangable, unprovable and PERFECT Creator of the Universe" it does suggest due to the extremely unlikely focus that the person would be considered mentally deficient
If you went to a psychologist and described ALL of the things you believe in... but said it was a Rabbit you were talking about and NOT God they would lock you up and throw away the key. It is only because our politically correct world says "NEVER doubt religion" that we allow beliefs in such far fetched things to continue
e. God exists outside of time/space etc, etc
Kedaman, you wanted me to disprove your theory.
1. Man was created in God's image (The Bible)
2. God's image is therefor bipedal, air breathing etc
3. If God exists OUTSIDE time/space then
a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?
f. Time Travel ala Sam
There is a flaw in your theory. For particles to collide they have to be in 3-dimensional space. If they were only in 1-dimensional space they would never even intersect.
Time is ONE-DIMENSIONAL!!!
Therefor no particles from "parallel" timelines would ever collide with others.
PLUS. Time has only ONE direction. It is a VECTOR just like our first-dimension (funny how the 1st and 4th are the same in properties with one being physical and the other temporal).
It is the 4th-dimension that allows US in the 3rd-dimension to actually exist. Thus to answer Cbomb, you CANNOT exist within the 4th-dimension just like you CANNOT exist in the 1st-dimension.
g. Idea that every possibility could coexist as a parralell universe as you're suggesting is in fact impossible
Sam! Are you saying "impossible" ;)
If the area it is contained in is infinate, then an infinate number of infinates COULD exist in infinity. Heck!!! The whole definition of infinity is that it is the biggest thing there is.
You CAN'T use mathematics again here. If you WANT to I could use it against you ;)
0 + 0 + (0 x infinate) = 0
Therefor I have PROVED that an infinate number of possibilities CAN exist in the same place next to each other
Gen-X - the time travel thing can't really be explained without diagrams, i'm sure there are thousands of objections you could come up with but that isn't one of them, that's what happens when you try to explain a wierd Idea about 4D space in 2 short paragraphs.
I can see your side of the argument that you can't prove anything at all in the real world but using maths to prove things makes sense if you base the logic on what is currently belived to be a good model of the real world, otherwise you might as well give up on science altogether, here's a nice simple mathsy way of proving something.
I am in London.
It is 9 'o' Clock in the morning
Leeds is 200 miles from London
I can't run Faster than 20 miles an hour.
it is easy to proove that I can't get to Leeds in time to meet my freinds at 5:30.
Now you can say
ahh but you can take the train, or drive.
but given the rules I started with I know I can't get to Leeds before 6, If you suggest something and I use a logical answer to prove it wrong,either it is wrong or the laws of physics are wrong, OK, it's not 100% but who cares, it's more likley to be you that's wrong than the laws of physics, using formal logic to argue is called philosophy, which I can only assume is what were doing here.
Studies of infinity are very valid, they are used to prove some mathematical tools that we can use to establish physical laws, a simple example is escape velocity, we couldn't have this concept without a good Idea about infinity, the fact is if we were to try to assign a point in space to every single possibility of the way things could happen you could not do it, it's impossible, no matter how many dimensions you have, how close together you squeeze them, you just can't do it. It's a bit like the Nike Slogan with the word Can't inserted.
The whole God thing.
Stop arguing about it, youre never going to prove anything either way you're just going to offend someone.
Sam:
It doesn't matter if it cannot be explained in 2 paragraphs. If you say something like "When I breath water tomorrow" you don't need diagrams to know that the original statement is flawed.
The 4th Dimension is a VECTOR, it is a singularity within itself and if you utilize the existance of additional dimensions to allow "width of time" the vectors themselves will NEVER cross because at those higher levels they do NOT share the same space.
So once again. Particles on different time lines CAN NOT EVER COLLIDE.
Your "rules" don't say that the mode of transport that MUST be taken is running.Quote:
I am in London.
It is 9 'o' Clock in the morning
Leeds is 200 miles from London
I can't run Faster than 20 miles an hour.
it is easy to proove that I can't get to Leeds in time to meet my freinds at 5:30.
Now you can say
ahh but you can take the train, or drive.
but given the rules I started with I know I can't get to Leeds before 6
And so given the "rules" I CAN get to Leeds before 6 by RUNNING while standing on a train. Thus I am still running at 20 miles an hour but that is in relation to the speed of the train.
You continually try to use maths to PROVE things in the real world... when it JUST is not possible.
Maths is DEFINATE. It is a collection of attributes and KNOWN properties. SCIENCE is a collection of the attributes and properties THAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND.
This means that an experiment may not work a second time because we failed to understand a certain property. Mathematics cannot do this, because it relies completely on the fact that all factors are known.
I wish you would start understanding this!!!!
You said to me before. "Look at the definition of +". I did. It means to add, combine, include, put together... and a lot of other things.
So tell me WHERE in your own definition of the mathematical ADDITION : 1 lump of clay + 1 lump of clay <> 1 BIG lump of clay???
Again I show you that the REAL WORLD provides a factor that Mathematics did NOT take into consideration and that you have to place a NEW rule on it that says "You cannot Integrate the 2 items you are Adding"... Once again you have now QUANTIFIED something to make it fit mathematic principles.
Do I really have to explain to you again how every time you use a Mathematical formula to describe a real world situation you will ALWAYS FAIL, because there will be factors beyond your control?
How can studies of infinities be very valid!?!!??! Nobody has ever SEEN or EXPERIENCED an infinity!??!!? We use mathematics to QUANTITY one, and mathematicians tinker around with those THEORIES... but no human being has ever experienced infinity in its LIFE.
As for the God thing... Why can I not be offended??!?!
Why is it always the religious people that are offended by others saying God does NOT exist... and not those people who do NOT believe he exists being offended by those who do?
I find it completely offensive that anybody tells me I was created by some higher power, I find it offensive that I am TOLD the universe I live in was constructed.
I dont see you telling those people to not offend me!
Our world is far too politically correct... always protect the religious, allow them to have their beliefs but also let them stand on street corners raving to people who dont want to listen... THAT is offensive.
Gen-x, this is a very easy point and you understand it already so I don't know why you're objecting.
Maths Works if you don't change the rules.
ok, in my train thing I left an argument out, you know what I meant. Maths is about taking assumptions and extending them into laws, and taking the assumptions back to use fewer assumptions, Maths will always hold if the assumptions don't change, you are essentially saying that maths is useless for real world situations because we are not 100% sure that our assumptions are correct.
what we know about the real world is a model, it's not what actually happens, it's out way of understanding what we see, at the moment i'm having a nice glass of water through a straw(I'm not really but pretend I am) my 4 year old nephew(who I invented for the sake of this argument) asks me how I am drinking the water in the glass, I say that I'm sucking it, pulling it up throught the staw.
Now you know this isn't true, the air around it is pushing it up through the straw, as the pressure is lower in my mouth and the air outside it exerts an equal force in all directions directly proportional to the pressure, this causes a movement in the liquid (F=ma and all that) and the liquid chooses the path of least resistance up the straw.
Now you know this isn't true, Air doesn't exert an equal force in all directions, air is made of particles flying about and colliding with other particles and knocking them about, there are more particles outside the straw than inside it so the particles outside the straw give those inside enough energy to travel up the straw and into my mouth.
but you know this isn't true, particles don't collide, they have an EM field around sutch that as the particles get close to each other the field gets stronger and the repellant force increces.
but you know this isn't true, there's no such thing as a particle, they're waves as well, and I don't understand the physics at this level but something else happens, and what ever happens it's probably not true.
how much of this does my nephew need to know before he can claim to understand what's happening, all he needs to know is he can suck some water up the straw and he becomes less thisty, he knows if he sucks harder he get's more water.
from my second model I can work out exactly how hard to suck to get the right amount of water (if I have lots of information about the circumstances, tempriture air pressure, etc) I can use this information to prove a law that if the pressure in my mouth is P then the water will flow up the straw ar a rate F(P) Nobody will dispute this just because I havn't backed it up by experiment.
I can also use maths to prove other Laws, Engineers use maths to prove that they're brige will stay up, as long as the laws of physics are the same as he leant at engineering school and the bridge is accuratley constructed from his diagrams and is subject to the conditions that he has specifed, ie it might fall down if it is an earthquake but he's stipulated that it won't unless the earthquake is above a 9 on the richeter scale.
you can't just dismiss mathematical arguments because they rely on assumptions.
The whole time travel thing, you did not understand the argument because I didn't explain it very well, try dropping something, I bet it collides with the floor, it's this sort of collision I'm talking about, just with the floor and whatever you dropped destroying each other and looking at it from 4D space.
You're not going to accept the infinity argument, It took me 2 years to accept that this was how infinity worked, It's right, trying to fit all the posibilities of how things could happen is impossible, there's not enough points in space, any space no matter how many dimensions.
it's like trying to fit 6 apples into 5 boxes each of which holds one apple, you can't do it, no matter what boxes you put what apples in there's just not enough boxes, (and don't change the rules by cutting the apples up) Just because nobody's ever experienced Infinity doesn't mean we can't understand it, I've never had the pleasure of being shot but |I know it would hurt
Sam, i wrote this before your last thread, so i havent readen it yet.
Gen-x, glad your back here, i started to lose faith about this thread.
Te theory is simple, for god it maybe was like 73420972340320724897 years of 2397459734 peoples works, but if he had time, or correct to say, if he didn't have any time to worry about, why not? God are not like we humans, thinking about mircomanaging everything and then get tired of it and leave it. Maybe he just "said" things, maybe he just said it to happen, because had made his own programming language before he started to work with universe, so that he could just "say" a thing and it would happen. This isn't logical put it's outside universe logics, not going to explain this because i will never know. You can't proove or disproove it.
When you said "Something must have created us" you must refer to universe? Do you mean that there was no beginning in our universe, we're just in a continous loop or something? Why stating this while posting the 1.How big is universe telling us that universe can be FLAT", that tells universe may have been created by a reaction of positive and negative plasma. The more confusing it gets when you tell that possibly Universe continously expands which means that we must have a starting point when universe is zero size.Quote:
The most SIMPLEST answer is that WE JUST ARE.
-------------------
Our tiny and feable human minds cannot COMPREHEND this and so because we think we are a 100% chance of existing we postulate that SOMETHING must have created us.
1 in a zillion, i just used it for your and others beliefs, i think like you we have 1 in 1 chance of being here, because we're not random at all.
I will never know, but possibly i will be sure when science "proove" it. I'm still theoretical, aren't you?Quote:
How do you know that the Human race hasn't started up several HUNDRED times before and only NOW have we been successful?
i=sqr(-1), but it's not logical until we declare two dimensions.Quote:
Is there anywhere in the universe where there is the magical number i Which is the Square Root of -1?
What makes you think that we're not normal? We have defined normal, it's our word! Then what is normal and why is it not we that are normal?!?! Normal does not mean perfecT!Quote:
I think ALL life is an abnormality. It certainly isn't the most common thing in our universe, in fact to our knowledge to date it is the ONLY time it has existed in our universe.
That makes us "in opposition to what is normal"... otherwise known as ABNORMAL.
Don't pull the bible into this, i already said that i haven't taken the bible word for granted.Quote:
a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?
How do you know that? Can you dirsproove parallell universes?Quote:
Time is ONE-DIMENSIONAL!!!
I also think that mixing time with room making theories based on 4-dimensional timespace, cannot be compared to be like 4 dimensional room.
I can't proove nothing, but i can avoid not logical disproofs. Also I can tell why we shouldn't leave the possibility of God. I havent offended anyone yet, or? I will withdraw it immedeately if something i said offend someone.Quote:
Stop arguing about it, youre never going to prove anything either way you're just going to offend someone.
There's much that WAS science and that has been disprooved. If we know something, do you mean that we are sure on it is true or that it is true and that we know it?!?Quote:
SCIENCE is a collection of the attributes and properties THAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND.
I am theoretical, just don't take this for an offence, I'm still talking about possibilities. To not do that would be stupid and offending at the same time.Quote:
I find it completely offensive that anybody tells me I was created by some higher power, I find it offensive that I am TOLD the universe I live in was constructed.
I agree, That is stupidity. and offence. and human natureQuote:
Our world is far too politically correct... always protect the religious, allow them to have their beliefs but also let them stand on street corners raving to people who dont want to listen... THAT is offensive.
Gen-X: Time is NOT one dimensional. It does not flow in one direction. When you exceed the speed of light, time will reverse. It's as simple as that. Therefor, time can flow both backwards and fowards.
Gen-X: I believe your theory that WE JUST ARE. If all the stories of god were true, the Greek say that it's Zeus that causes thunder, but really in fact, it's a charge of electrons that cause it.
Another thing (and I pointed it out earlier) that saying God did something is the most simpelist answer for everything.
Saying that a mixture of atoms etc. etc. is a complicated answer which people didn't know a long time ago.
man all this information is mind bogleing. i cant comprehend some of the stuff said here, but im surely listening. there are some very intresting theories i have never heard before, and even though i dont agree with most of them, i am always open minded enough to listen. anyways im just saying im glad this discussion is started because it makes you think about life in a whole different way.
about time traveling, i do not understand how someone can travel back in time. i cant fully comprehend how time can be a dimension. i understand what you guys are saying about parallel universes and stuff, but i just dont believe time is a factor that can be changed. actually think of time in this matter, imagine a normal man and a man who can walk the speed of light. so the normal man does things normaly, it takes him about 20 minutes to drive to the market and by some food, while flash (the man that walks the speed of light) can do what that man did in less than 1 second. so look at it now, both men have aged 20 minutes but just one of them has done more things in that 20 minutes then the other guy. while the normal one just bought food in 20 minutes, flash bought food, took out the trash, vacuumed, took a shower, did whatever the hell he pleased in those 20 minutes but he still is 20 minutes older. do you get what im saying? just because you move fast as hell doesn't mean you stop time, it means you do more in the same period of time then someone slower than you. unless there is something coded in your DNA that says if your moving the speed of light, then dont age, then i dont understand how you wont age. time is a measurement we invented, what if some very intellegent alien species doesn't even keep track of time, because it doesn't exist! time is just a measurement of what has been done. you cannot take back anything you have done just because you are running the speed of light. picture it as a wheel that will ALWAYS rotate in the forward motion, nothing can touch it.
so maybe its just me, but i cant comprehend time traveling. what if i shot the president and killed him, but then i felt guilty so i run 20 zillion times the speed of light. what has happened here? nothing! im just way the hell out in outerspace but the president is still dead. movement doesn't do anything to time, i dont even understand why people think that. also i dont believe one bit that the speed of light is the top speed anything can move, i am sure there are some weird ass particles out there that move very fast and do very weird things that doesn't happen on earth. remember, the universe is pretty darn big and we know practically nothing about it.
thats just my 2 cents, please reply and talk more cause this is intresting.
have you guys ever thought this? i have read some stuff in a magazine that talks about NASA being a total hoax (however you spell it). some think that NASA is BSing everything that it knows and these rockets and stuff are just props. all those pictures are made on some computer and etc. i dont believe that theory but i thought it would be intresting if it was true. just bringing up another topic to talk about. so you guys think that NASA is BSing a lot of things?
Here is what I Believe
NASA Is A real Organization That sends things into space and sends back pictures that could only have been taken from space.
Aliens Probably Exist on other planeds but none have come to earth.
There is some higher power controlling the universe in ways that we don't, and probably can't, understand. most easily explained as God, Wheather it is concious or not is not mine to say.
that which I percieve.
Megatron:
What stories are you talking about? Simply put, i'm not dragging up any religious stories here. Assuming that we name the creator of universe, "GOD" It doesn't mean that he sits on a cloud and throw lightnings on us. I said God is the simples answer, and i meant the most logical. The most clear. Now go read the whole thread before you post something. I bet you find all interestingQuote:
Gen-X: I believe your theory that WE JUST ARE. If all the stories of god were true, the Greek say that it's Zeus that causes thunder, but really in fact, it's a charge of electrons that cause it.
Another thing (and I pointed it out earlier) that saying God did something is the most simpelist answer for everything.
Saying that a mixture of atoms etc. etc. is a complicated answer which people didn't know a long time ago.
[hdem2]
[b]Relativity theory[/]
If we suppose that there were just about 1 lightyear between Helsinki and Washington. You shoot the president get the hell out of there, you travel to Helsinki in about 4c so it takes about 3month for you to arrive at Helsinki airport. So you look back at Washington with your binoculars. You see that the president is still alive. You live a while (about 9 month) in Helsinki and before you go to sleep, you look at Washington and one day you see yourself with the gun pointing at the president.
If you now travel back to Washington with the speed 4c, time wont go fastbackwards this time (relatively to Washington of course) Instead it will go fastforward because you're travelling at -4c. You arrive just 15 month after thre presidents death. My point is that realative time means nothing the reality. Absolute Time is not responding to travelling in speed, Relative time is your own illusion.
So making this clear I suppose if two fotons pass by in opposite direction, the other will travel at 2c relatively to the other. If this is not enough for you then we can select a center point, an absolute point of universe. We select our sun, suppose it's morning and earth is moving upwards the sky relatively to sun, a street light emmits fotons that goes directly upwards relatively to earths center. Each foton from that light will travel at earths speed+c, relatively to sun. So that's all about relative positions. As there are no relative limits, why can't we travel faster than speed of light? I think there are no such limits, just us thinking we will go backwards in time if we do, time is constant and the fotons are making the illusion of being at another time.
Sam:
And how do you know what the rules are to start with?Quote:
Maths Works if you don't change the rules
Your example of a straw :
!!!!!!!!!!!!
State for me exactly ALL the conditions that go into determining the amount of energy required to obtain 10ml of liquid in your mouth.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you don't know!?! Then if Maths works if you don't change the rules I assume it DOESN'T work if you don't KNOW all the rules.
I cannot understand why you are completely blind to this concept. You said yourself Maths is only useful when you know everything involved. That fits your belief that AI is possible... just like maths.
But now I have DISPROVED all of your theories on the usefulness of maths AND the development of AI by using your OWN statement that Maths cannot function if you do NOT know the rules (or all of them).
Time Travel
Actually Sam, I do understand your example. But what you are failing to understand is the NATURE of the 4th dimension
Think about this for a moment :
1st Dimension (Length)
Vector, directed, travelling from some known/unknown point towards a known/unknown destination
2nd Dimension (Width)
Extension of Length in another plane. Allows for the Vector to now move on a different axis. Items in the 1st dimension no longer exist. Intersection can occur now in the 2nd dimension ONLY.
3rd Dimension (Depth)
Extension of Length/Width in another plane. Allows for Multi-directional Vectors to now traverse laterally. Items in the 1st AND 2nd dimensions NO LONGER EXIST. They are now representations with minimal Depth. Existings in "Reality" becomes possible (our universe) but it doesn't function. It is FROZEN.
4th Dimension (Time)
Vector, directed, travelling from some known/unknown point towards a known/unknown destination
Reality now becomes mobile, existance is no longer an eternal instance. Items can now move as a result of taking TIME to do so.
What's this!?!?!
Time has exactly the SAME properties as LENGTH but chronologically instead of metaphysically? Time itself actually ACTIVATES the 3rd dimension!!!
BUT, It is still a vector, it STILL travels in the same direction. It might be able to be SLOWED but it cannot be reversed.
5th Dimension (Width of Time)
Now TIME no longer exists on this plane, Time can now have multiple existences running side by side, timelines if you will. But they cannot affect US in OUR time because the 4th dimension DOES NOT EXIST in the 5th dimension.
6th Dimension (Depth of Time)
Now the 5th dimension becomes only a representation in the 6th dimension. The 5th doesn't exist any more. Time now has the ability to EXIST within its own reality... BUT IT CANNOT TRAVEL BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACTIVE.
If you want to talk about time travel you have to understand and work out what the 7th Dimension is that actually activates the ability to "MOVE" through the Chronal Reality.
I know its a theory, in fact I haven't heard anyone but myself ever mention this theory... but it certainly does fit a lot of things and until someone can show me something that DISPROVES it, I'm happy to take this for my views.
Infinity
Of course I am not going to accept the infinity argument. Because real infinity and mathematical infinity are 2 seperate things. I completely and totally agree with you mathematically... but that insn't the point we were making.
Fitting 6 apples in to 5 boxes utilizes the mathematical principle that says.
6 - 5 = 1
And that If 6 - 5 > 0 We cannot fit them.
But try it with infinity...
inf - inf = inf (its infinate so the answer is the same)
OR
inf - inf = 0 (if you EVER take something from itself its 0)
You are comparing 2 seperate things here and the "assumptions" of maths can be looked at from 2 different sides.
kedaman
Universal theory can be any one of those depending on what we discover in the future. Any one of them is possible and none of them MUST relate to any point in time where existance started.
Where do you think all the Quarks go? They have proved that particles appear in a vaccum as Quarks (which are believed to exist in some extra-dimension) collide to form atoms. Perhaps this other dimension has no time and therefor this universe has existed for eternity as a result of leaking quarks into our universe.
Of course you think we have a 1 in 1 chance, and that we are not random. Could you cope with the fact that we ARE random? Do you agree its a possibility?
The word Normal is something used based on a point of reference. Your right, when we are talking about other human beings we use NORMAL to describe what we have decided is common.
But what I was talking about is what the Universe considers NORMAL, not what WE consider normal. The most abunant materials in our universe are hydrogen and helium. Anything other than that is an abnormality. Planets, asteroids, water, LIFE... it is ALL abnormal to the universe
I'll ask you again. If you cannot explain this then HOW can you accept it as a religion?Quote:
a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?
Funny that :DQuote:
There's much that WAS science and that has been disprooved
Does that mean that we consider something to be true until we prove it is wrong? Well blow me down and spank me sideways... Isn't that what I have been saying all along?!?!?! SCIENCE CAN ONLY DISPROVE. SOMETHING REMAINS TRUE UNTIL WE PROVE IT IS NOT SO.
Thank you for agreeing with me kedaman :D
Megatron
Have a look at my theory about about TIME (the 4th dimension) being 1-dimensional. You might find it good reading.
But I do have to stress... That you cannot go BACKWARDS in time... you can ONLY slow down time relatively (due to exceeding the speed of light) which means other people will see you as "appearing" to go backwards in time but the great distances you travelled to do it means you have only DISTORTED time... you haven't actually travelled backwards.
This is the SIMPLEST theory of relativity... why on earth do you think its called that!?!?!? because its RELATIVE
While the simplest answer 2000 years ago was to say that some supreme outer-dimensional being decided to create a weak and frail inferior form of life on a backwater, nearly non-existant galaxy.... we know better now, the "simple" answer has changed so we can drop all of this religious support and start thinking like sentient beings.
Sam (Late breaking post)
"God moves in mysterious ways"
Thats basically what you are saying right? Funny how people only ever say that when some young child is horribly killed in a senseless and pointless accident.
To use computing :
Perhaps you need to look up the word "crutch"... it explains perfectly this belief people have in higher powers who do mysterious things that are ALWAYS for better reasons we cannot fathom.Code:If Bad Event Then
MsgBox "God did something we dont understand"
Else
MsgBox "Stupid humans did it themselves"
End If
hdem2,
You are correct in a way about your theory of time. The way we measure time is totally made up. We measure vibrations of Cesium (spelling?) atoms. And then divide that up into hours days, years...and somehow manage to make it all work with our calendar.
Here's how I see actual time (that is if it is even real...)
Consider that snipet the 4 basic properties of any object in our universe. We know what Height, Width, and Depth are. But Time is the measurment of an objects duration of existance. This is set to usually infinity because when an object is destoryed is is actually just broken down. So MyObj.Time cannot equal 0 because if it did then MyObj existed for zero time so it never existed in the first place!Code:Type Any3DObj
Time As Integer
Hieght As Integer
Width As Integer
Depth As Integer
End Type
Dim MyObj As Any3DObj
Thats pretty much my view regarding time.
i dont know if this can be true, but i have heard this many years ago when i was 7 or 8. i have heard that in like a zillion years (or whatever very large number) the universe will run out of energy to keep expanding. and when this happens it will start to shrink untill it reaches the same point as the "big bang" then it will have another "big bang" thus a never ending cycle. but i have heard, the universe might not have enough energy to collapse back into that original point from where it started growning from, and when this happens, all matter just freezes in its place. as if everything has reached absolute zero. but if this happens, doesn't that mean ALL life has ceast to exist? if that is so, what will happen? does it mean nothing will exist ever again? piture that for a second, picture EVERYTHING in existance in every galaxy frozen forever. what will happen? if nothing moves, then nothing happens. that means nothing exists period! isn't that unimaginable! i cant think of it, its too crazy. think of nothing for eternity, i cant, i always picture something is going on.
anyways, i know that is a whack theory, but i thought i would share it with you guys cause i thought is was interesting.
it always bogels my mind to think of nothing is going to exist ever again because of that universal collapse...
I agree that it is a possibility, a one in a zillion possibility. If you don't like it, then tell me something that replaces evolution. BTW did you change sides?Quote:
Of course you think we have a 1 in 1 chance, and that we are not random. Could you cope with the fact that we ARE random? Do you agree its a possibility
What if we have aliens, what if we have so much aliens in all other galaxies, but just not in our? How can you then state that LIFE is not abnormal to universe?Quote:
But what I was talking about is what the Universe considers NORMAL, not what WE consider normal. The most abunant materials in our universe are hydrogen and helium. Anything other than that is an abnormality. Planets, asteroids, water, LIFE... it is ALL abnormal to the universe
My only religion is that GOD IS. If it doesn't support all catolic, lutherans or ortodox, i don't give a **** about it. Why are we so scattered? It's because of bullshit. Ecumenical thinking is just a step towards my beliefs. I think people if they believe, they will believe like me in distant future.Quote:
a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?
I have stated once that science is based on air. I have also stated that we can proove and disproove nothing. Disproove one or both of these before you post anything like that.Quote:
Does that mean that we consider something to be true until we prove it is wrong? Well blow me down and spank me sideways... Isn't that what I have been saying all along?!?!?! SCIENCE CAN ONLY DISPROVE. SOMETHING REMAINS TRUE UNTIL WE PROVE IT IS NOT SO.
hdem2
Have a read of my posts in this... I think about page 3. It tells you exactly about the theory you mentioned.
Kedaman
No I haven't changed sides. See other post. Just because I use the word "evolution" doesn't mean it is DARWIN's theory of evolution. Don't confuse the concept with the author ;)
You think its a one in a zillion possibility that god does NOT exist? Explain What that 1 in a zillion is then?Quote:
I agree that it is a possibility, a one in a zillion possibility
Oh come on kedaman!!! That is like saying... "What if there were more humans than particles of air". Think about it for a moment!!!! Hydrogen fills up MOST of the known universe, Life (even alien life) requires to exist INSIDE the known universe. Therefor something which fills the ENTIRE universe will ALWAYS outnumber something that has to exist INSIDE it (and probably on planets or in ships or something)Quote:
What if we have aliens, what if we have so much aliens in all other galaxies, but just not in our? How can you then state that LIFE is not abnormal to universe?
You are talking about the number of beings outweighing the building blocks that MADE them.
Perhaps this explains your logic behind God having only 1 in a zillion chance of NOT existing.
Let me ask you something :
1. If GOD is so omniscient why create us?
2. If he exists outside of our space/time why create it?
3. If the "rules" don't apply to him why make them apply to us?
Surely you would WANT to create something equal to yourself in order to be entertained/kept company or whatever... but you wouldn't set out to make something that was completely and totally inferior to yourself and then control everything that happened inside it.
Oh and one last thing. If God is responsible for everything and can micromanage everything then he is repsonsible for MY disbelieving in him.
So God is actually disbelieving in himself... therefor he doesn't even think HE exists... so why would we?
Thousands of years ago we believed the Gods created lightning. Some man with a white beard actually STOOD on the top of a hill and threw bolts of lightning at the people because he was "angry".
We have now grown up and realise this was false.
We used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe... Why else would God create us his chosen ones and then place us in an obscure corner of the galaxy.
Now we know better
We used to think that God created plagues and swarms, turned water into wine and did all these miracles...
Now we haven't seen those kinds of things in 2000 years.
Funny that... miracles have now gone "covert"... they have suddenly become the things you only see if you look REALLY closely (and believe... which in itself means you already will say you see them).
We have spent the last 2000 years coming out of the dark ages of religion and the absolute attrocities it has wrecked on humanity... Its time we did like the famous quote suggests :
"Its time to put away such childish things"
We are grown people now, we are our own race... we don't need to believe something is "watching over us", or that we have a protector in order to survive. There is no need to think that something ELSE is responsible for us or our world. What is it going to take to convince people that there is no such thing as God and even if there is he certainly doesn't give a rats arse if we live or die...
Perhaps destroying the earth through environmental disaster (or religious war) will convince people...
What a price to pay for being so damnable egotistical in thinking we are a SPECIALLY CHOSEN CERATION of an Omniscient super-being.
well gen-x, you said exactly what i said on my first post of "about creation and AI". the first thing i said is that we should drop religion because it gets in the way of scientific progress and other things. but i dont mind others believing in god as long as they dont try to shove it in my face. and just like they say i offend people buy saying there is no god, well they offend me by saying there is. i know you said that already gen-x but i always thought this and i decided to support you on this.
what do I need to calculate the straw thing, it's not the easiest experiment as it was just one I thought up that could be explained in a few different levels
OK, I think I can Make do with this
The air pressure in the room
The Time I wish to suck For
The x-sectional area of the straw
the height of the straw
g - a constant for the accelaration due to gravity in the room, aquired by experiment
k(1 - n) - some constants for the experiment aquired by n similar experiments under similar conditions.
the x-sectional area of the glass
the height of the glass
(the last 2 assume we are using a prism like glass, if not we may have to know more about the glass. I'm also assuming the straw is held verticly, a constant pressure is maintained in the mouth and other assumptions)
I can't remember the physics of all this, the water having fallen back down into the glass when I stopped sucking doesn't help matters but With this information I should be able to come up with a good model and an answer more accurate than if done by experiment as an experiment would have errors in its measurements.
I don't understand where your objection to maths comes in, science is about making a model of the universe, a set of rules that we think holds, if we have a model we can use maths to extand that model and the predictions will be correct within that model, I'm sure you've used dimensional analysis before, what's that if it's not using maths to prove real world situations, you are continuing do dismiss maths on the grounds that it bases itself on some obscure assumptions, which is pretty meaningless considering that we cannot understand the universe, only make better and better models, I'm not saying maths can prove something 100% I'm just saying that it's our best tool for understanding th universe, and it's predictions are as right as the information it's given.
The time traval thing
You Did not understand my origonal argument, you couldn't have understood my original argument because what I wrote didn't make sense. I'll try to explain what I was trying to say.
it is a well established Idea, central to the Ideas of special relitivity that there are 4 dimensions of space, one is easiest to think of as time, however it isn't time, it's just another dimension of space. ( We Call these Dimensions X, Y, Z and T) any object is simply a line throught this 4 dimensional space (known as minkowski space) and what we are to percieve as now is a point on this line, the future is those points on the line in one direction and the past is those in the other direction. one second is represented by 3x10^8m (the distance light travels in 1 second in a vacuum) on this line
are you all with me so far.
now this is easiest to imagine using a minkowski Diagram.
we assume that any particles we think of all move backwards and forwards on a single straight line, like beads on an abacus) This means that they can be drawn in mincowski space ignoring 2 of the dimensions (Y and Z) so they can be drawn on a peice of paper. this is called a minkowski diagram, it's basicly a graph of the path of an object with distance along the X axis and Time up the Y axis(which we'll call the T axis) we also need a "Frame Of reference"
this is something that is not moving in respect to the X axis, ie a straight Line in the T direction whith x=0, all measurements are taken from this.
OK, you've all drawn your pretty Diagrams, something not moving is a straight line up the page, something moving at the speed of light is a line at 45 degrees to the T axis, a low speed, like the speed of sound or something can hardly be seen on this diagram, it's just a very small angle, so the effects of travaling at a high speed are not something you are going to have experienced, and what time is is a bit wierd.
"Now" is a point on the line right, but that's only a point, we need a line representing all points in space that we percieve as now, for the stationary object that's easy, it's a line parralell with the X axis, as you would expect, for the object that's going at the speed of light it's not what you would expect. The line goes at 90 degrees to the object's time line. so at a point in time that which is now for the stationary object includes a point t on the moving object, but at that point t what is now for the moving object includes a point in the future of the stationary object.
as long as the lines are straight lines this is the basics of special relitivity, all the equations just pop out, actually getting to the speed of light is general relitivity, which I havn't studied so I can only accept what gen-X says about small particles breaking light speed.
up till now that's all established physics and right, up to a point somewhere in the depths of quantum physics
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
now, what happens if as I said an antimatterparticle and a matter particle colide, well, draw it, remember, when the particles get close together the gravitational, electro-magnetical and Strong forces get stronger and stronger, and the particle can break light speed for a very short amount of time due to heisenbergs uncertainty principal. they can even go at an Infinate speed, as long as they don't spend any time going at it, ie when they collide they are going at an infinite speed, but not at any time before that.
this means when the particles collide they do so head on as far as the timelines are concerned, ie the 2 lines seem to join together to make one line, draw this on you're minkowski diagram and it looks like there is just one line and that line hase turned 180 degrees and is heading the other direction in time, to turn back th oposite must happen, 2 particles must create themselves out of thin air, this does happen, again Quantum mechanics says it's due to the heisenberg uncertainty principal.
so, to go back in time there must be 3 versions of you, 2 of them create themselves out of thin air(or thin vacuum) a matter version UA, an antimatter version, UB, and another matter version UC which is the original version of you.
at some point, say 1983, UA and UB create themselves, UB is going backwards in time and just does things backwards for a few years to the amazement of his freinds, UA goes and buys some mirosoft shares, then 17 years later in 2000 UC and UB see each other and combine to destroy each other, thereby starting the time traval get rich quick scheme.
This has lost of strange metaphysical implications about causation (the cause happing before the effect, taken to be true in this universe, but never proved)
That's my time travel theory, this happens at particle level near black holes, it's called Hawkin radiation,, I don't think it's ever been put forward as time traval before however.
OK Gen-X that is what I meant, I have to stress that up the the row of confused looking smileys that's all true, the rest is just an observation. I don't know how possible this actually is under quantum mechanics or how you would go about doing it, apart from jumping into a black hole and hoping for the best.
It was Just an Idea, I didn't expect the spanish inquisition.
1. Have I mentioned Darwin ever in these posts? It's at least second time u mention it, im sure.Quote:
1. No I haven't changed sides. See other post. Just because I use the word "evolution" doesn't mean it is DARWIN's theory of evolution. Don't confuse the concept with the author
2. You think its a one in a zillion possibility that god does NOT exist? Explain What that 1 in a zillion is then?
2. That is a a world where things happens randomly, a world where evolution or something else caused our existance, a world where god not exist. A world where we're probably doomed to death, but it's a world where we are the kings.
Do you want me to dig deeper again? Then I'll tell you, all matter is abnormal, actually nothing is normal, in other words vacuum, that is what just about 100,000000000000000000000000000000000% of universe consists of. Therefor what you have explained what normal atoms in universe. If we have so much aliens that it would possibly be natural to find them in a 1000 cubicparceks then i would call life normal. I think quantity and in this case quantity in such small and simple things like atoms, cannot be compared to quality of life.Quote:
Oh come on kedaman!!! That is like saying... "What if there were more humans than particles of air". Think about it for a moment!!!! Hydrogen fills up MOST of the known universe, Life (even alien life) requires to exist INSIDE the known universe. Therefor something which fills the ENTIRE universe will ALWAYS outnumber something that has to exist INSIDE it (and probably on planets or in ships or something)
If I would be religious, i would answer in the word of bible on these question, but i'm just completely sure on just one thing so, i give you my own answers.
1. If GOD is so omniscient why create us?
Why do we do things? why are we not sitting and wait for death. Meaning that God created us in his image, maybe meant that he created us to be as creative as he is himself. I'm didn't say that God is God because that he can do everything, i said that God is God because he created us. I coud replace the word "God" with "Creator" if I want, but that will only confuse stupid people out here.
2. If he exists outside of our space/time why create it?
Because space and time is a creative thought if you never heard about time or space, i would be damn sure that you would never invent it. I think God meant us to explore, expand, advance and evolve, and all this neads space and time.
3. If the "rules" don't apply to him why make them apply to us?
Same anwer as above, Life is meant to advance. Without rules, we would be just like God, and be perfect from the first beginning. I thing you have asked this qwestion alread once.
The bible says that he had to give us free will to do things, they can go to hell or to heaven or something like that. But i'm saying like before, the answer is the above. But at this point bible have something. We can't actually think that he would control or wills either? Have you ever feeled like you've loosed control of yourself?Quote:
Oh and one last thing. If God is responsible for everything and can micromanage everything then he is repsonsible for MY disbelieving in him.
So God is actually disbelieving in himself... therefor he doesn't even think HE exists... so why would we?
God still is creator of lightning, but he don't stand there with lightning bolts, he invented the rules of lightning. How do you know that the centre of our galaxy is the centre of universe? How do you know that there's no centre at all? If we were Gods only intelligent creations then we surely are the centre of universe.Quote:
Thousands of years ago we believed the Gods created lightning. Some man with a white beard actually STOOD on the top of a hill and threw bolts of lightning at the people because he was "angry".
We have now grown up and realise this was false.
We used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe... Why else would God create us his chosen ones and then place us in an obscure corner of the galaxy.
I don't believe in miracles, in your definition. Human nature is to lie, I suppose we had easier to lie before than now, when people knows so much.
We are not. We're still stupid and childish, lying when we can, need to believe in things, BTW how do you explain the majority of people have a religion? Time is going to take, Science, Genetic manipulation, AI, Brain-computer integrations and all the wonders of future will make us grow up, more than ever before. We are already in a growing up stage, look behind us. Now we have the same thing ahead, growing up. In future we will believe a little as possible and be as intelligent as possible, we will go towards a perfect human ideal. Not weak people your talking about Gen-x. Destroy the world is really childish. Your last comment sounds like you really hate humanity.Quote:
We are grown people now, we are our own race... we don't need to believe something is "watching over us", or that we have a protector in order to survive. There is no need to think that something ELSE is responsible for us or our world. What is it going to take to convince people that there is no such thing as God and even if there is he certainly doesn't give a rats arse if we live or die...
hdem2, i totally agree with you, religion is damn in the way of science, religion is in the way of the way to the perfect human. We need to grow up. Keep in mind hdem, that im not telling you that God exist, so I assume you wont offend me because im not offending you. But telling me that god exists or not wont.
Gen-X: Okay, I'm starting to see your point. Maybe time cannot be reversed literally, but it will appear to an observer that you are moving backwards. I will stick with my point that time can be slowed down.
Sam I have to agree with you there...
I think we are in a round about way saying sort of the same thing... Perhaps the only disagreement we truely have is that we are using the same terms but each have different meanings on them.
So yes, I can agree that we are not going to get any further on that point.
Secondly, I agree with you that a cup of tea will make you "feel" cooler but not actually drop your body temperate. I would have thought that obvious as you are increasing the temperature of your central body mass thus causing an inverse "feeling" in your extremities.
To my way of thinking its like getting into a hot bath when you are absolutely FREEZING or when you are already luke warm. One feels like it is scolding while the other feels a bit warmer... but the temperate is NO different. Only our bodies perception of the difference between itself and what it contacts.
As for the time thing... I am confused on one point of issue.
How can something move at an infinate speed but only for a moment. Surely the "concept" of "A Moment" means that it has a beginning AND an ending... And if something has an ending then its speed isn't infinate. Of course it may be higher than we can calculate but if the timeframe is FINITE then the speed must ALSO be finite.Quote:
A particle moves at infinate speed but only for a brief moment
I am sure there is some mathematical formula or something you can run passed my eyes that tell me otherwise... but like you said... it only works because you have ALREADY assumed the details are correct. In this instance we DO NOT KNOW if the details are correct to be able to use that formula.
As we have never seen or touched or observed an infinity outside of Maths, we cannot be sure that the assumptions are correct.... Don't you agree?
The cup of tea argument ran on for so long because the question was does it cool you down, which half of us interpreted as does it make you feel cooler, and the other half as does it lower your body temperature, it went on for a long time before we clicked what was happening.
The infinite speed idea, OK, draw your Minkowski diagran, and draw a line smoothley curving through 108degrees and then smoothley curving back, like I said about giong back in time. Now look at this from the 3 partcle point of view, when the 2 particles collide they are going at 90 degrees to the direction of your line, they must be. this is translated as in infinite speed. also imagine the 2 colliding, the eq for the force is k/(r^n) for each force, k being GMm for gravity, r as the distance between the 2 particles and n a constant for each force, 2 for gravity.
when the particles colide r=0 which implies the force,( and if you work it out the speed)are infinite. (in maths we'd avoid the whole infinity issue by liberally spreading the idea of a limit but it makes things quite hard to read) again the ideas fuse nicley. and quamtum mechanics probably allows it, you'd have to do some serious eqns to work out if it is allowed but the idea is we're trying to work out is if the infinite speed multiplied by the zero time allows it according to the uncertainty principal. I suspect it will allow it for very small particles but not for large ones.
Ths Idea of infinity is completley different from the other Idea which forbids the parallel universe, it's much easier to swallow if you think of it like this
say I have a plane, and I want to express a point on that plane I need 2 numbers, an X and a Y, or a Radius and an angle, but I need 2 numbers, I can't express a point on a plane in just one number.
with the possibilities of what could happen in the universe, how many numbers do I need to express one uniquely, I can't do it in one, nor can I do it in 2.
It turns out that I'd need an infinite amount of numbers to express one uniquley. this leads on to say that if we wanted to store them we would need an infinite number of dimensions of them. This I cannot agree with.
Sorry, but i'm born in Finland, and English is my second language. Also i don't know what dispicable is and what i meant with "we are all kings" was that we control ourselves not being predefined to do things. I'm not religious fanatic, even if i'm fanatic member here. I don't know what brow-beaten is either. Don't try to push me over the edge if i can't express my self accurately.Quote:
Oh and "we are all kings" is purely religious fantatic propaganda designed to influence the politically correct people who have been brow-beaten through out the ages to think any faith in your own self is dispicable.
Also, my god-guru uncle just phoned me and telled that he has both scientific and philosophic proof of that god exist, I'm going to wait, he will send me his theory as soon as he writes it down.
Gravatons? Just tell me what that is???????????????? Do they have any weight, any particular speed?Quote:
Incorrect actually. There isn't much of space that is actually a vaccum. In fact most of space is FULL of photons (light), gravatons (gravity) and many other sub-atomic particles.... So unfortunately your "theory" is flawed.
Fotons can't get outside the radius of tc where t is time since bigbang and c is speed of light. So this will make fotons so rarely in universe that they just about 0% of universe. Gravatons? Gravitation seems not to be any particles to me, because if so, the whole universe would be spangled with gravatons, even when t was 0.000000001 seconds. Even one single foton would have a field of gravatons that goes trough every spot in universe. Then we wouldn't have place for matter, so i assume there is no gravaton particles.
Bottom line, all space between all particles is actually vacuum, so you're wrong. If you have a a glas of air and fotons, it doesnt mean that there's no vacuum in it. between the atoms, molecules and fotons, there are so much vacuum that it would be normal even inside the glas.
I'm quoting my self here, but thats only because you misunderstood me Gen-x. When I say God, it doesn't mean that there is a God. I say God because it fits the theoretical "creator of universe" definition to me, not any other. I will read that book, if have the possibility to get it, and time for it.Quote:
i said that God is God because he created us
What's wrong with that, or should I say funny? Laugh on, I wont mind. When youre done with it, tell me if you see anything unlogical with it? "The creator of universe" must be creative.Quote:
God created the Universe because it was a creative thought
Whats a corker?
Quoting myself again because you totally pissed me off and misunderstod me at the same time. Thats 10 point to you and a lot of chocolate and nothing at the same time.Quote:
Life is meant to advance. Without rules, we would be just like God, and be perfect from the first beginning. I thing you have asked this question alread once.
1. We are not and will not be gods
2. "God is perfect" you did say, I didnt. I said that we would be perfect, refering to humanitys ideal, at the "about creation and AI"-thread
3. We're not breaking any rules at all. We are just exploring them. See science as this "advance" and you will get it, but actually i meant life.
4. All other things you came up under this topic, is based on these misunderstandings.
I can't tell you if control is an illusion or not, I have similar theory on that to, and I wont even bother to tell you that you shoudn't state that, you can't proove it. You just told about "souls" being , are they illusions? Actually you answered on that retroactive question, not the actual "We can't actually think that he would control or wills either?" And i meant not implementing free will. the "soul" you were refered to.Quote:
No I can't say I ever have. Control is an ILLUSION, it doesn't actually exist... therefor you cannot lose something you didn't really have. Perhaps if you studied some Taoism you would start to understand these principles
We have only one centre to the position, and that is in timespace at 0,0,0,0. After that point, there's no particular centre of univese because it's unlimited. And taking the bigbang point for the centre is wrong because we don't have any actual absolute values validating positions, everything is relative - Einstein.Quote:
The same way I know my house isn't in the CENTRE of the street. We look to one side of us and see LOTS of stuff, we look to the other side and see VERY LITTLE stuff. This tells me that I am NOT in the centre.
If you believe the Universe is expanding then you accept the validity of the methodology used to "QUANTIFY" this expansion. Those are the same methods used to determine our position in the universe. So you cannot agree with one and deny the other
One thing we DO agree on is that we need to grow up... While I think leaving religion behind will be a step towards this end...
What do you think it will be?
I haven't said that I believe that universe is expanding. Althought thats logical to me.
I agree leaving religion, is a way to grow up. But i think religion will follow us as it is human nature to believe, and that is also a way, probably the correct one. Your is absurd, to achieve
I think we should grow up by science, refering to my last post at this thread.
Why bother to ask? You have read my posts since Vb-grey world, so you should know that I hate religious stupidity. Gen-x you really are good at being sarcastic, I'm jealous.Quote:
Going back to the dark ages where we burned witches at the stake for talking heracy?
[b]I'd like to ask you guys a question about Ghosts.
Do you believe in them? I know people who have never lied in thier life and they swear to god that they've used an Ouija board and it worked.
Sam
I read what you wrote and agree that all of it sounds logical and all of it probably works out very well mathematically.
However, like you said it is only a model and until they can actually do what you are talking about I think I will hold onto reality a bit more than mathetmatics :)
Kedaman
First I want to say Hello from Australia. I guess with our different languages and different cultures understanding some of the slang and words is a little difficult. Appologies if that difficulty in communicating caused problems, its the one flaw of humanity to NOT have a clear and consise language we can all speak.
I'll be interested to hear what PROOF your God-Guru Uncle has to put forward... I wont hold my sceptisism back though as I am almost sure that whatever he comes up with can be seen in 2 different ways... which has been the case with ALL "proof" of things so far.
Gravatons are the particles that actually transmit Gravity. Our entire solar system has a slight gravitational PULL from Proxima Centuri, the closest Sun to our own... and to EVERY SINGLE other sun and body of mass in the universe. (Although the actual level of this effect is minute). Thus every body of mass exherts a force on every OTHER body of mass via Gravatons.
The whole reason your FEET stay on the ground is because your atomic structure is being BOMBARDED with gravatons with sufficient force to overcome escape velocity. Don't dismiss something you simply do not KNOW, your comments on Gravitons not existing is pathetic and as you know GRAVITY effects anything regardless WHERE you are or how DEEPLY you might be buried... they pass through EVERYTHING.
Just to PROVE it to you, have you seen what happens to a free floating object in SPACE that comes into contact with liquid? THe liquid forms a thin layer completely AROUND the object itself, as the body of mass of the object generate a field of gravitons that act towards its centre of mass.
Thats why planets are generally Spherical and why liquid in space is a PERFECT sphere... because the gravitons act equally in all directions towards the centre of mass to create gravity.
This is one of the 4 primary forces in the universe.
As for your "Bottom Line" about "vaccum" being ultimately between all particles I think you are wrong again. I actually believe that when you get right down to that level, the sub-atomic level what you actually find is the residual pattern of plasma or energy which permeates the universe. "Vaccum" is a terminology we use to describe the fact that there are no Particles (Oxygen or otherwise) in an area of space... Sub-atomically the term simply doesn't exist.
You have my appologies for misunderstanding you when you were talking about "God". I have only EVER heard the term God in relation to the anglo-saxon, christianic "God" and so I probably assumed you had everything else that went with it. Maybe thats just my Australian upbringing (we are very western here) and if you had used "Creator" or "Deity" I would have better understood (which you have not explained.. thank you)
What did I find so funny? I found it so funny that you created a paradox. "God Created because he is creative". That is like saying "The car travels because the car is for transport"... its stating the "RESULT" and not the cause.
A "corker" is an Australian Term which means a good joke, a CLASSIC joke or something that really stands out as being funny
Are "souls" illusions? I couldn't answer you that. An illusion is something you BELIEVE to be real, and in believing something is real you are using your force of will.. and as I said, its your force of will that makes it possible. So perhaps they are illusions which is WHY they are real. As for control, it IS an ILLUSION, which is why it can actually affect you because you believe it is real. So if you BELIEVE in the illusion then it is definately real... so perhaps if we started seeing souls as illusions they are no longer real.
That would make sense.
As for religion. It isn't human nature to "believe".. if it was then there wouldn't be so many people here now that DON'T believe. It is a human condition to not want to be responsible for your actions, to have a "purpose" in life... and while some have to turn to a higher power for that others can satiate that need themselves.
Mine is absurd to achieve? If that is so perhaps you should to some christians... they constantly struggle to acheive something that is always denied them and yet they must continue to struggle for the unobtainable for life, STILL be sinful on their death bed and STILL not get any closer to what they are TOLD they should always try and acheive.
THAT is absurd.
It takes a lot of practice and effort to be this sarcastic :D
You should be jealous ;)
[Edited by Gen-X on 05-03-2000 at 09:49 PM]
Megatron...dude...this must be a first...mention of ghosts on this bulletin board.
Do you mean ghosts as in, no government record of the person and no record of their existence or the things that go bump in the night?
No l don't believe in ghosts or the abilities of our current government down under :)
have you ever seen a graviton, has anyone ever seen a graviton, are they in any way detectable apart from this mysterious force they transmit? No, they must be magic.Quote:
The whole reason your FEET stay on the ground is because your atomic structure is being BOMBARDED with gravatons with sufficient force to overcome escape velocity. Don't dismiss something you simply do not KNOW, your comments on Gravitons not existing is pathetic and as you know GRAVITY effects anything regardless WHERE you are or how DEEPLY you might be buried... they pass through EVERYTHING.
That or they don't really exist, they're just one of the crazy theories made to explain why gravity is different from the other 3 forces. They're as scientificly valid as the carpet dimension.
HEhe, sam, I agree with you, the gravitons are just a theory, and i think if it's not generally accepted by science, it's not real until Gen-x disprooves something. That one with the liquidball doesn't proove nothing, I think gravity is one of the four primary forces yes, but it's a law, one of the rules in universe, not any particles, because we can't have particles that goes trough matter, affecting them to movement and then affect matter behind it, and so on. This would mean that if moon goes behind Earth for suns gravitons, All gravitons from sun will just pass trough Earth, adding energy to each particle it get's in contact with and still have the same energy from the beginning. That's not how particles work. If they hit something, give it more energy, they will loose some or all of themselves.
If you want the real answer to why God created univese, then don't look at me, because I wont have the answer. I'm going to ask my uncle about this. Still haven't recieved any mails from him. I'm not sure either about what he said to me because it alls sounds very extreme.
I have seen this thing so many times i have problems with understanding it:
What is Reality?
What is True?
What is science?
What is a "prooved" thing?
What is scientifically prooved?
What is fact?
What is "exist"?
Well, don't answer me on any of these because they're all based on that we think it is it, but what word shoud i use instead of illusion, to refer to the actual truth out there. If something exists, it just exists in our mind, if something is scientifically prooved, then we think people have prooven it by science...
I thought reality was the right word, but i was wrong
Mmmm.... interesting...
Now a few of you have me wondering... Surely as programmers you have learned the art of analysis, of information retrieval and in being able to find resources on things you don't know...
But your last statement about gravitons being fictional now makes me wonder if you are typing with your fingertips poking out of large white coats that strap around your back ;-)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970608.html
http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/gen_rel_exp/
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap3.html
http://autodynamics.org/new99/Layman/PicoGravitons.html
http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/a12_ub.html
And it took me less than 5 minutes to come up with just these links. If there is one thing I hate.. its ignorance, I find it the most VILE failure of the human species to wallow in the middle ages just because it doesn't fit what YOU want to be the truth.
So next time before you start calling it magic, quoting that nobody has seen it so does it really exist... do a little research.
If I were to use YOUR kind of ignorance then DNA doesn't exist (I have never seen a chromosome), YOU don't exist, and neither does the sun... because funny enough, although I can see the light it produces I have never been able to actually look AT it.
:mad:
(walking off into the distance shaking his head wondering if some people should have stayed as single celled organisms)
Gen-X
Your own sources fail you. They state that the graviton has not been detected, The only thing to support the Graviton is that the Maths of it works out, Not a mathematical proof which I would accept, just that the graviton is one solution to the Descrepancies in the four forces, now you of all people should be sceptical about that. As I say, the theory is as valid as the carpet dimension. (For thore of you that don't know the Carpet Dimension was a wierd theory which included a 5th Dimension rolled up like a carpet. It was dismissed for being unfounded and strange)