Evolution [ for those who care ;-) ]

Megatron:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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 interesting

[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:

Quote:

---

Maths Works if you don't change the rules

---

And how do you know what the rules are to start with?

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

Quote:

---

a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?

---

I'll ask you again. If you cannot explain this then HOW can you accept it as a religion?

Quote:

---

There's much that WAS science and that has been disprooved

---

Funny that :D
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 :

Code:

---

If Bad Event Then
  MsgBox "God did something we dont understand"
Else
  MsgBox "Stupid humans did it themselves"
End If

---

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.

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...)

Code:

---

Type Any3DObj
  Time As Integer
  Hieght As Integer
  Width As Integer
  Depth As Integer
End Type

Dim MyObj As Any3DObj

---

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!

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...

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

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

a. Why were we created in his image?
b. Why is his image that of a planet walking, air breathing biped?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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 ;)

Quote:

---

I agree that it is a possibility, a one in a zillion possibility

---

You think its a one in a zillion possibility that god does NOT exist? Explain What that 1 in a zillion is then?

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?

---

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)

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.

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?

---

1. Have I mentioned Darwin ever in these posts? It's at least second time u mention it, im sure.
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.

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)

---

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.

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.

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

A particle moves at infinate speed but only for a brief moment

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

Gravatons? Just tell me what that is???????????????? Do they have any weight, any particular speed?
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.

Quote:

---

i said that God is God because he created us

---

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:

---

God created the Universe because it was a creative thought

---

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.
Whats a corker?

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.

---

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.
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.

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

---

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:

---

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Going back to the dark ages where we burned witches at the stake for talking heracy?

---

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.

[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 :)

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.

---

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.

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)

My sources don't fail me... Those were just a mere FEW links I found on how they came up with the idea of the graviton.

They have since been able to confirm its existance but as would be expected there are not many credible scientific sources found on the internet.


Also, I would have thought YOU of all people would have blankly accepted their existence considering they used MATHS to prove them.

If you find me a source that says they found one I'll believe it, From what I know they havn't
9I may be wrong) and they didn't poroove they evisted mathematicly, they used what they call in the courts circumstancial evidence, Id doesn't wash there and it doesn't wash here, Until they Find one I maintain that they just happen to be a popular theory at the moment.

Sam.

Do you believe Quarks exist?

I'm not ignoring anything. When I first heard of graviton, i searched and found enough info to convince that gravitons just is a not prooven theory. Even if I would think it sounds like saying god exists from you, i would be the one to tell you that even newtons theory of gravity is a theory. Ive already visited two of the pages you mentioned, but i wasn't looking for what they had to tell, just if it was a theory or not.

Now i am aware of that the theory is that the Graviton have a quantum mass and a size, and also that it travels at speed of light so they are not everywhere in universe and that gravitation cannot be a field, so we don't have them at every single spot, if we would have subgravitonal particles, they wouldn't be affected as far as they stays out of the way. But what i found more interesting was the pico-graviton, the mechanical explanation to gravity. The interesting thing is that it travels at 27c, which is just about as much as is needed for exceeding speeding limits in universe, not possible, to that there are none. Think about the possibilities. Also Sam, here's more about scifi guiding science that I mentioned i was explaining from Discovery Channel:

Quote:

---

In essence, mass is simply more than one Pico Graviton. HOW pico-gravitons are related to mass is completely unknown in Autodynamics and is left to future researchers to discover.

Does the Pico-Graviton Exist?

The big question is: is there proof for pico-gravitons? There is no "proof", but there is a lot of indirect evidence. What is important at this point in the history of physics, is that Autodynamics provides the next step in explaining many "unexplained" phenomena and that the actual relationship between mass and energy will discovered with time. Perhaps some of the more "experimental" research involving gravity control or faster-than-light phenomena may already be on the right track. Further research is needed.

Autodynamics provides a paradigm - a platform - to allow such research to flourish and open doors in physics research and technology that today only exist in science fiction.

---

I have no opinions either way on the existance of quarks, I don't know anything about them.

The reason I doubt the existance of gravitons is that they are there only to explain why gravity is different from the other 3 forces and so many theories have been put forward to explain this that I am sceptical of all of them.

Actually I was reading a university source book on science the other day (from my uni days) and it was talking about an experiment they were doing.

They kept getting anomalous readings... every time they did this experiment they detected a particle that had absolutely NO mass!!!

They were bewildered and yet the more they studied it the more they came to realise what it was. So they gave it the title "Graviton". I can bring the book into work tomorrow and list for you all the names/books that have this in it if you want.

So as you can see it is NOT a theory, it is a name given to something THEY HAVE PHYSICALLY FOUND!

As for you not believing in quarks because don't know anything about them... how very convenient for you. THEY have been proved as have gravitons, gluons, masons, bosons and every other particle.

They actually believe that the graviton is a phase-shifted photon and that photons are the building blocks of energy in our universe.

I didn't know that, did they prove it was these that caused gravity or at least indicate it. I don't quite understand how something with no mass can move anything.

I didn't say I didn't believe in Quarks, I just don't know anything about them so I can't really say either way, It's like me asking you if you believe my brother can juggle. It's something I know nothing about.

Quantum Physics just isn't my subject so I will have to believe you that they have been found, It just seems a bit crazy that a particle with no mass can do anything.

or is it that it has no rest mass, like the photon.

Quote:

---

I didn't know that, did they prove it was these that caused gravity or at least indicate it. I don't quite understand how something with no mass can move anything.

---

As you probably know, "gravity" has been described as the bending of space around a body of mass. We also know that the "force" of gravity increases with the more mass that is in question.

The question of whether something with "no mass" being able to move something is irrelevant because we are talking sub-atomic here... quantum theory. The "gravitons" transmit energy that causes the atoms to move in the same direction as the "flow" of the gravitons which funny enough happens to be towards the centre of mass where space has been bent.

How does ANYTHING move? Of course we can look at it macroscopically and say that I move my arm and the air particles around it are displaced... but if we look at a sub-atomic level what happens? Which particle moves first? And do the others follow it because of their Strong Nuclear and Weak Chemical bonds to the previous atoms?

You are talking 2 very different sciences here.

Quote:

---

I didn't say I didn't believe in Quarks, I just don't know anything about them so I can't really say either way, It's like me asking you if you believe my brother can juggle. It's something I know nothing about.

---

So why say Gravitons don't exist? Obviously you just don't know very much about them and yet you stand up and categorically deny their existance saying they are only "theory"... but when it comes to quarks its all "Well I don't really know much about them so I don't comment".

Bit of a contradiction in terms here... something you seem to like to do a lot of.

Quote:

---

Quantum Physics just isn't my subject so I will have to believe you that they have been found, It just seems a bit crazy that a particle with no mass can do anything.

---

Thats exactly what quantum physics is all about. It seems to me to be silly that a Quark requires more energy than it takes to power an entire city for a day to pull it apart from another Quark when both of them are so tiny...

But "size" and "mass" have absolutely NO bearing towards their power when it comes to the quantum fields.

Quote:

---

or is it that it has no rest mass, like the photon.

---

It never mentioned "no rest" so I cannot say one way or the other...


But back to your contradiction. Before you kept telling me that mathematics was good to use as models and proofs etc, etc... and yet ALL of mathematics is "theoretical". Now you come across something that is "theoretical" and you dismiss it because it is a theory and "not proven" as you say...

So why do you accept SOME things that are theoretical and completely deny others?

Methinks you accept that which you WANT to accept and deny that which you don't... but heck, we are all human and do that don't we :)

Kedaman

There is still debate going around about electrons...

- Are they a cloud around the nucleus?
- Do they come closer and go farther away?
- Do they hold patterns or just swarm around?

We come up with THEORIES and PROJECTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS explaining 10 ways to sunday what we THINK an electron does... but NOBODY denies an electron actually exists.

Just because there are theories like picogravitons that try to explain something doesn't mean its a fake or bogus. Experiments kept detecting this particle, OVER and OVER again... just like they detected electrons.

So what is the difference between the person who first said "I shall call this an electron" and the person who said "I shall call this a graviton"?

Sam

Quote:

---

As I said, I know nothing about quarks, it never bothered me why they were there or wheather or not they were there, I know that there are 3 of them inside every proton/neutron and that they have a property called colour which makes them attract in 3s, I don't know why we decided they were there and I don't know how we decided they were there.

---

Well just to let you know they believe that a graviton is a "form" of quark. They also believe that Quarks exist in another state or phase and that only when they combine into a formation of 3 do they come into OUR existance. That explains why particles appear in a vaccum, and it also explains why pulling apart Quarks causes them to disappear (not release energy but ACTUALLY disappear).. they have phased back into wherever they were before.

Quote:

---

The Graviton I know a little about

---

So you know next to nothing about something we all KNOW exists for real... but you know more about something you doubt even exists?!!?? That makes sense ;)

Quote:

---

It was invented to explain some effects about gravity, explaining things about gravity is where most bogus theories come from

---

It was not invented... it was actually NAMED as a result of it continually being detected in experiments. Have a read on the actual documentation regarding the KK experiments and you will find that this anomalous particle kept showing up and stuffing up their experiments. They thought it was bogus because it had no mass... and thats when they realised what they had found

Quote:

---

It involves particles that have masses smaller than what was believed to be the smallest unit of mass, It travals at 27 times the speed of light and nobody's ever found one (pico gravitons)

---

It has NO mass, if it had mass then it in itself would create a gravitational field which it does not. If it had mass then it would stand to reason that it passing through another object on its way to causing a gravitational field to a second object would effect it MORE.. which it does not. The fact it has no mass is directly correlatory to the fact that it affects ALL matter to the same degree based PURELY on distance to the centre of mass.

This is simple Field Theory which funny enough is what most scientists believe to be truth at the moment... not just idle gossip or "trendy theory" but actual belief... just like we believe the earth is round.

Quote:

---

To me this sounds like a crazy theory invented to explain something,

---

And because you are completely unwilling to even explore the possiblity you will continue to think it is crazy... That is EXACTLY the mentality that the catholic church had when dealing with Galilleo... they nearly burnt him at the stake for heracy because he blasphemed that our God created planet was NOT the centre of the known universe.

That kind of attitude was also the reason why Jules Verne died in a mental institute because he had "crazy theories" about boats that could sail underwater and aircraft that used a propellar on the top for lift.

What is crazy is that you would dismiss something simply because it doesn't follow what you think is crazy and NOT crazy... I might think some things are crazy but at least I give them due course until I see they are completely unfounded and based in illogical assumptions and flawed theories rather than seeing if they mathematically add up

Quote:

---

the right theories all just pop out of maths, the 2 biggies this century, Quantum mechanics and Releitivity just popped out of the maths and were shown to hold by experiment. Einstein was one of the poineers of QM completley by accident, he hated the Idea of quantum mechanics but it just kept coming out and he couldn't stop it.

---

So does this mean you believe it or disbelieve it? Do things that just "pop" out mean they are good or that they are convenient to explain everything?

I am sure it just "popped" out that we are round when Columbus actually went around the entire world and came back

Quote:

---

Remember just over 100 years ago everyone believed in something callled the Ether to explain some inconsistencies between Newtons laws of motion and new results about the speed of light. I don't believe gravitons are any more than a 21st century Ether.

---

Well FANCY THAT!!! And the reason they stopped believing in Ether was because someone DISPROVED it. Now where on earth would anyone get an idea that something is believed until the point at which it is disproved and a NEW theory comes along that withstands the riggors of scientific scrutiny.

Then strangely enough THAT stands as "belief" until someone shows that it is also wrong and have a NEW theory that now can withstand anything thrown at it.

My Oh My... Thank you for showing that scientific method by disproof has been the commonly accepted form of paradigm shifting for at least the last 100 years... so nice that you agree with me Sam :)

Quote:

---

In the 1990s, Carezani set out to find the properties of this particle he dubbed the "pico-graviton". Using calculations for perihelion advance, he came up with the following numbers: the pico graviton has the mass of around 1x10 81 kilograms, and travels at around 27 times the speed of light. Another person in the SAA has claimed to find approximately the same values for the properties of the pico-graviton through completely different methods but the calculations have not be confirmed.

---

that was taken from one of the websites in your list

are you saying it's the graviton (acording to you a particle that was found and named) or the pico graviton (as yet unfound) that causes gravity?

I agree totaly that the graviton was found, but just because it's called a graviton doesn't mean that it causes gravity, from your sources it's the pico graviton that is doing the work.

with a particle the size of a pico graviton I don't doubt that the uncertainty principal can be twisted in order to allow these things not to cause a gravitational field.

I am not dismissing the Idea that these things exist, however all the phisics I've seen has absolutley "beutiful" maths behind it, this is why I'm sceptical of the Idea. (I'm sure you at leat know what mathematical beuty is, even if you don't appreciate it
)
Newtons laws of motion

F=Ma = GMm / R^2

one equation that explained the motion of just about everything that can be observed (you have to adapt it a bit and add the EM Field equation etc, but still one equation)



Special Relitivity

The Lorentz transformation, a simple set of equations which made the "ether" completly inconcequential, and explained the huge discrepancies between Newtons laws and the constant speed of light.

Quantum Mechanics

The proof of the Uncertainty principal is in my opinion the most beutiful piece of maths I've ever seen (the one with probability waves, not the crappy particle bouncing explanation)

General Relitivity

I havn't read it but I've heard it is even more beutiful than the uncertainty principal.


Do you see the pattern, they were all arrived at by looking at the current laws, spotting something, thinking it through and then arriving at the theory, all the theories are very simple in concept. General Relitivity was "Proved" based on the assumptions of Special Relitivity and the equivilence principal (I mean proved mathematicly which we have discussed isn't enough to be taken as true)


This is why I'm sceptical of the idea of the pico graviton, to me it seems that slight inconsistencies were spotted in general relitivity, (one of which is the Idea of planets speeding up in their orbits, which could easily be attributed to them hitting space rocks and droping slightly in their orpits, or something else) and then someone said "I'm going to come up with a theory that explains this" and off they went and invented the pico graviton. which in my opinion is where you should get sceptical. Do you see the parrallel I'm drawing petween the Pico Graviton and the Ether. :)

Well i've already given up the debate on the gravitons existance, I was just pointing out that if the picogravitons did the work, what possibly could gravitons cause, if they don't even have a mass. I don't care if we have electrons or gravitons actually existing or not, but why telling gravitons have the purpose of picogravitons when they don't? A particle may be detected but a purpose may be false. I'm not sure Gen-x But have you read all those webpages you posted?

I've learned one thing, it's not everywhere in universe, so to the old argument, most of the universe consists of vacuum. Gravitons, picogravitons or not, they have to move, and to move they need space, which is vacuum.

Quote:

---

It has NO mass, if it had mass then it in itself would create a gravitational field which it does not. If it had mass then it would stand to reason that it passing through another object on its way to causing a gravitational field to a second object would effect it MORE.. which it does not. The fact it has no mass is directly correlatory to the fact that it affects ALL matter to the same degree based PURELY on distance to the centre of mass.

---

Why create a gravitational field if there is not such thing as gravitiational field? I think you're inconsequent. If picogravitons is the reason to illusion "gravitational field", then how could you possibly think about a picograviton with a gravitational field? I've also checked out the mass of picogravitons: 1x10 81 kilograms. That is not NO mass.

I still don't care if picogravitons exists or not, but i think it's a crazy theory, and we should be as sceptical to it as to ghosts and souls.

Quote:

---

And because you are completely unwilling to even explore the possiblity you will continue to think it is crazy... That is EXACTLY the mentality that the catholic church had when dealing with Galilleo... they nearly burnt him at the stake for heracy because he blasphemed that our God created planet was NOT the centre of the known universe.

---

We still don't have a specified center of universe in 3d-space. If God created humans to be his most advanced creations, Earth surely is the center of universe. Whatever you say about we're not in a middle of a galaxy, doesn't matter, actually we have a massive black hole in our galaxys center, so it's like stupid to place us to live there if life ever could survive in such environment.

Quote:

---

Well FANCY THAT!!! And the reason they stopped believing in Ether was because someone DISPROVED it. Now where on earth would anyone get an idea that something is believed until the point at which it is disproved and a NEW theory comes along that withstands the riggors of scientific scrutiny.

Then strangely enough THAT stands as "belief" until someone shows that it is also wrong and have a NEW theory that now can withstand anything thrown at it.

---

First, how can you ever DISPROOVE something if you don't have enough facts? If you believe in something, you can create tons of theories based on it and never understand the actual truth. If science fails to explain univese, even in distant future, like it does now, we've made a big mistake in taking what we see for to be true from the first beginnning. In every single theory, every single concept, we have a EQUAL proportion of possibility to be an illusion, if we don't have ANY FACTS AT ALL. By "disprooving" and "prooving" we only would tell ourself to think this makes more sence than that, but we can't take nothing for granted. For beliefs, i can tell you that everything you think you know, you're actually believing in.

Woah, this is well deep. Gen-X, how do you sleep at night knowing you're the most sarcartic person in the world.

How is he sarcastic? He is only expressing his side of the arguement.

He rips peoples arguments apart using his sharp teeth of sarcasm. There's more to being sarcastic than just saying the opposite to what you mean.

Anyway, get back to the physics.

CandleStick

I sleep like a baby thank you very much ;)

It was extremely sarcastic wasn't it... but you get that when someone spends their whole time saying how wrong you are only to then say exactly what they disagreed with in the beginning... Unfortunately being a human being means things like that trigger my sarcasm.

Others

No I didn't read the sites I listed... I listed them because at the time you were saying "They don't exist" and "Only a few people believe that crazy idea". So the fact I found sites relating to them so quickly showed that it wasn't such a crazy idea. I wasn't about to filter those sites to ONLY show you ones that agreed completely with what I believe myself... that would be stupid.

I'm not here to support just MY claims... I am here to get ALL the evidence both good and bad and adjust accordingly.


You see this is what it comes down to... what I have been trying to say all along they everyone seems to ignore.

Kedaman is right... how can we ever know ALL the facts? How can we ever know something we did is the TRUTH?

We boil water and measure the temperature at 100 degrees when it boils. We repeat the process 1000 times and the result is ALWAYS the same.

So we make a RULE : "Water boils at 100 degrees"

Then some bright spark decides to boil water at the top of a mountain... and it boils at 70 degrees!!?!?!?!

We didn't realise that altitude has an effect, we didn't realise that at higher altitudes the potential energy is different and that particle movement increases thus decreasing the amount of temperature required to excite molecules.

So now we revise the RULE : "At 1 atmosphere Water boils at 100 degrees"

And we come up with some wonderful mathematical formula that can compensate for Temperature and Altitude.


But none of that actually PROVES anything about how water boils... ALL of it is based on the current facts that we know and when a new fact comes along we adjust our thinking to include this new fact.


That is why I keep trying to tell everyone... YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING!!!!

All you can do is find a theory that seems to work and then try and tear it to pieces. If you try everything you can possibly think of to DISPROVE it and you fail... then you hold onto that theory as "What we currently consider to be most valid" until some NEW fact comes along that allows you to disprove it and move on.

Why is that concept so damn strange to everyone out there!?!? It is the ONLY way that scientists actually work, perhaps Uni students out there should go and talk with physics students and ask them because they will tell this to you like it was common knowledge.

Science is about finding answers... and those answers are only accepted when it is IMPOSSIBLE to say they are wrong... not when you can come up with some pretty mathematical formula to explain it, not when you can draw diagrams or perform experiments.... but when there is NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON that can say/show/do something that DISPROVES what you are saying.

If you guys cannot understand this simplistic principle then I am amazed ANY of you are actually programmers!!!

Because I hope you don't test the robustness of your applications by writing mathematical formulas to show they are doing what they are supposed to...

I hope you are testing them by trying to knock them around, tear them apart and FORCING them to fail... because only when they fail do you know where you have gone wrong.


Am I making any sense or am I talking to a brick wall here?

Gen-X

Can we leave the Descartes out of it. I thought we settled this. Of course you can't prove anything about the real world, but we can make some assumptions and prove that other things are true if our assumptions are true, if one of our assumptions turns out to be false, then what we've proved is not neccaceraly true, but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.

as it happens I do use maths to test my programs, I come up with a few simplified cases of what the program is trying to do, work out the results mathematicly and if the program produces all the right results I assume it to be bug free. If it makes one mistake I go on a bug hunt.

sometimes I don't bother, I just check that the formulae I come up with to see If it simplifies to various special cases, If it does then I assume that that part of the program works.

It makes bug hunting far far quicker and more reliable because with a couple of equations I can have the same confidence that it works as I would after an infinite number of tests.

You can't prove anything, but you can believe things, and I don't believe in pico gravitons because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true. A theory I believe has to be based apon a logical extension of observed assumptions, pico gravitons do not satiasfy this.

I think we as human beings are doomed to explore, advance and discover, so we can't stand still and do nothing. But if science fails at some point in time, and we can't find out what bugs, then we have always a way out, at least one that can explain, and we won't always have to go that deep but we can find the failure at a very basic nature. For instance we have the Matrix.

Sam

I am going to break this down to the lowest possible form that I can in the hope you will actually understand this...

Quote:

---

Of course you can't prove anything about the real world, but we can make some assumptions and prove that other things are true if our assumptions are true, if one of our assumptions turns out to be false, then what we've proved is not neccacerilly true

---

Ok. Lets just deal with that statement.

What you are saying is that providing all of your "assumptions" turn out to be correct, then you can actually prove that something is TRUE in science?

Now I have some questions from that...

1. How do you prove your assumptions are true in the first place?
2. How many times has science ever gotten it ALL correct?

Quote:

---

but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.

---

I dont know who you are referring to there but what I would say is that what you CAN do as a result of this is to listen to any and every theory and try and poke holes in it... If you find that you are unable to come up with anything solid and concrete the dismisses it then you accept it under the knowledge that "It is currently the closest to TRUTH as we know".

Thats very much different to what you quoted above.

Quote:

---

It makes bug hunting far far quicker and more reliable because with a couple of equations I can have the same confidence that it works as I would after an infinite number of tests.

---

Ouch!! Ewww!! Yuck!!

If that is how you test programs then I am cringing. Obviously you haven't heard of "Unit Testing" and "Function Testing" and DEFINATELY "Acceptance Testing".

Simply verifying formulae and "assuming" that because it works a few times means it works for an infinate number of tests is not enough... Its ok for simple formula or for returning of single strings etc but for an entire application there are usually many interactions of unrelated (or seemingly unrelated) objects. You have to thoroughly test every possible outcome and eventuality in order to be sure it will work correctly...

Any Software Development book will tell you about this... its the first thing we learned in University under Software Engineering.

Quote:

---

because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true

---

Oh your kidding me right? And what do you classify as "observation"? I can't see air particles... I use some device that tells me they are air particles but I dont specificially see them myself... So are they there?

I can't see quarks, and yet they know they are there all the time...

String Theory and its application have shown a consistant and CONSTANT presence of a particle that has no mass. Half of science is about "filling descrepencies" and then trying to bash the hell out of them... if they fall over then its dismissed and something better is found... if it manages to withstand the riggors of being bombarded then it remains true.

What the hell do you think the electron is?!?!

Someone was doing an experiment on an Atom and they kept finding this particle pop up that had a negative charge. "Mmmm...", says Mr Scientist. "I wonder what that is... Lets see what I can get to FIT here. Is it another proton? Nope, its negative... Is it a Neutron... Nope, its too small... Perhaps I should call this thing an ELECTRON, and I shall say that it has a charge of -1 because there seems to be one of them for every Proton in the atom and its overall charge is 0".

He then went away and hammered on that, trying to make it false. He did tests, tried to disprove what it was but each time the answers came back the same... So he published it... and OTHER people hammered away on it... Eventually nobody could come up with anything to dispute the fact that this was a atom that had a charge of -1 and in neutral particle, matching the same number of +1 protons.

THAT is science...

Kedaman

Quote:

---

But if science fails at some point in time, and we can't find out what bugs, then we have always a way out, at least one that can explain

---

And what is that way out that we can explain?

Quote:

---

If that is how you test programs then I am cringing. Obviously you haven't heard of "Unit Testing" and "Function Testing" and DEFINATELY "Acceptance Testing".

---

Actually i would prefer faster but functional methods instead of slower but accepting methods. That's what's make API better than Vb methods. About making an application while i'm "Unit Testing" would take ages and I would get tired of doing it. Instead i would make a stright example of what i'm doing first and then expand slowly to get it more functional and correct. I think Sam is doing the right thing.

Quote:

---

String Theory and its application have shown a consistant and CONSTANT presence of a particle that has no mass. Half of science is about "filling descrepencies" and then trying to bash the hell out of them... if they fall over then its dismissed and something better is found... if it manages to withstand the riggors of being bombarded then it remains true.

---

That sounds like fact, but when you say "true" put into "" because something is only true if it stands against all possible arguments of laws in universe, not only human thoughts. But then also, i don't see we can thrust universe either as fact, only to be true to human beings.

Now i know scientists and mathematicians don't like Descartes, because their theories are dismissed like that, but we should have that in mind and not dismiss it because it's the most basic theory of universe, still being true because noone has disprooved it. It's like removing Newtons theory of gravity and calculate simple classical mathproblems with Einsteins relativity theory.

Also i didn't know anything about Descartes before Sam told me, so i was just standing here as his littlebrother without knowing it.

Quote:

---

And what is that way out that we can explain?

---

Universe does not exist. Well i'm disappointed that Descartes already have said things, and i'm just repeating his theory but at least i have him to quote. No, Sam, i will stop posting theories of Descartes, as i know i would just disappoint people, and that's not what i want.

oh god, I have to explain this to you again

Quote:

---

1. How do you prove your assumptions are true in the first place?
2. How many times has science ever gotten it ALL correct?

---

let's start with Newton and his theory of Gravity. He started with these assumptions

A Time is Absolute
B F=Ma (This can be "Prooved" to hold from some other observations)
C The observed positions of the Planets that were available to him were accurate
D Ignoring Air resistance 2 bodies of differing masses will accelarate
under gravity at the same rate


From this he "proved" mathematicly

E F = (GMm) / (r^2)


now as it happens A,B,C,D and E have been proved not to hold in all situations, but in situations where we can approximate to A,B,C and D (We approximate to C bysaying that it does not matter if our results are slightly innacurate) then we can Approximate to E.

Statement E was true enough to get us to the moon, It doesn't matter that it's not absolutley true.

Now If Statements A,B and D can be proved from other simplifying assumptions which we can easily test in a situation to see if they are good enough approximations then we can go straight to statement E. and I'm quite happy to call that true.

Quote:

---

but it's pretty useless to sit there thumb up bum and say that you're not going to learn anything about the world around you because it can't be proved to be there and anything you learn can't be proved to be true.

---

What do I mean by this? Shut up about not being able to proove anything is what I mean, You know what I mean by prooved, I know that you can't prove anything to be true in the real world, and ok, any observations we can make might just be a big coincedence, but if we assume that the patterns we see hold until something breaks that pattern then we can make predictions based on extentions of these patterns. I'm fed up of saying this.

Quote:

---

because of my own rule that if the theory makes assumptions that can't be observed (ie there's a load of pico gravitns floating around) and it is derived because it happens to fill a particular discrepency then it is unlikley to be true

---

Every major breakthrough in physics is made by following up simple observations, an observation is not nessaseraly some thing you see, it can be something you feel (ie air), something you conclude from the result of an experiment or just a new way of interpreting something you see everyday (ie Einsteins Happiest Thought When you are falling unresisted due to gravity the laws of physics are the same as if you are at rest in no gravitaitional field) Einstein did not say I recon space is curved and then work backwards from that.

The Pico Graviton was invented purely as a theory, it was then worked backwards to make it work, This is why I am sceptical, I can't say they don't exist, I'd Just Like somthing more definate before I take on board theIdea of the Pico Graviton.

I'd Like to remind you at this point that although physicists found a particle and called it a graviton, that is a completley different particle to the Pico Graviton which has not been detected. Gravitons do not cause gravity, it's just a name.

I can't be arsed to explain my testing methods, but they are more thorough than you suggest, I just use maths to know what tests I have to do. (ie if I work out one of my functions is a linear transformation in 3Space then I know that I only have to test the function 3 times, it's enormously unlikley that I get the function so wrong that not only is it not a linear transformation in 3Space but it also gives the right results for my 3 tests Getting it that wrong is like trying to add 3 numbers and putting a square in it. (I'll Explain what 3Space means in Creation and AI, It's what you mean when you say the 3rd Dimension) All I do is cut down the number of tests I need to do by doing the right ones.

I can picture it now...

The scientists make the assumptions, they do a few little calculations and then they launch the rocket to the moon

BOOOOOOM!!!!!

Oops... We forgot to take into consideration Factor X... It changes our entire equation... We actually got it wrong, but because we didn't bother testing it outside of our control environment we never KNEW that the result would be that... Oh well.. what a shame.

Do you know how many people have died in Rocket ships? Explosions on take off? Testing of Fighter planes? Just because some stupid moron did a few mathematical sums and said "It happened 10 times it will happen 1000 times"?

You keep saying what you are saying, you keep agreeing with me... and then you crawl back into your safe little haven and snuggle up to your beloved mathematics to stay warm at night.

On and I understand the Pico Graviton is a theory... I don't beleive in it either... But YOU were the one to choose the Pico for your arguments... I chose the Graviton which HAS been detected and DOES exist. Of course you couldn't find anything to dispute the Graviton so you centred on the non-existant Pico... Funny enough you also tried to "DISPROVE" it... funny that :D


But all of this is a bit off topic from our original statement... which was that Darwin's theory of Evolution is in my opinion just an "observation" of what really happens.

- Mutation occurs.. .but it is NOT the mutation which causes evolution

- Survival of the fittest occurs... but it is a side-effect of evolutionary progression NOT the reason for it

THOSE were my original statements, THAT is my belief and unlike most people who refuse to support their beliefs with facts I wrote in here EXACTLY why I believe what I do about Evolution according to Darwin is WRONG.

This may be a little of subject but how many dimension are there? And what are they each?

i.e
1st dimension = length,
2nd Dimension = width,
3rd dimension = depth/height
4th dimension = time

That's quite a hard one, there's no actual number of dimensions, we can come up with models involving N dimensions, with different qualities, they don't actually have to exist, we can have energy as a Dimension if we like, or pressure, light intensity, it depends what makes more sense when seen as a dimension than when seen as a quantity, A dimension isn't a real thing, it's purely a mathematical Idea.

Quote:

---

A dimension is a purely mathematical idea

---

Oh my God! Sam... now you are taking the cake... its almost as good as your "The Sun rorates around the Earth" comment.

Mathematics has provided definitions for dimensions and has provided ways of calculating things within them... but as for dimensions being purely mathematical... *WHACK* wake up!

:D

Mega...

As for how many dimensions nobody is really sure. At the moment we know of 4 of them which you have stated.

String Theory has suggested that there are either 10 or 26 and my personal opinion is that there are 10.

Why?

Because it works out like this :

Code:

---

1D - Length
2D - Width
3D - Height
<---------------- We now have RealSpace
4D - Time (Length)
5D - Time (Width)
6D - Time (Depth)
<---------------- We now have ChronoSpace
7D - XXX (Length)
8D - XXX (Width)
9D - XXX (Depth)
<---------------- Who knows what we have now
10D - ????

---

Look at us. We exist in the 3rd dimension. Our universe has Length, Width and Height. But we don't move... everything is stationary. Its only when the 4th dimension comes in that we are "ACTIVATED". So we actually LIVE in the 4th dimension.

Look at time... Time is a vector just like Length... but instead of being in a real space it is in relation to "time". So why wouldn't the additional dimensions then logically follow that there is a Width and a Depth of time?

Now follow the logical pattern. If the 4th Dimension ACTIVES us then the 7th Dimension ACTIVATES Time.... I have no idea what XXX is and I dont think any human being CAN understand what XXX is because it is beyond our comprehension as 4D beings. As for what the 10th Dimension is that Actives the others you've got me.

I'm not talking bullshit here, this is a very valid theory called "String Theory" and recently "Super String Theory". It has explained a lot of things that up until now have been unexplainable... And I will continue to believe it until someone shows valid reason not to.

Over to you Math-Sam

I am going to have to go with Gen-X on this one. Claiming that dimensions are purely mathematical is just plain ludicrous. Dimensions can be defined using mathematics, though i find it very hard to believe they will ever be truly quantified, but your argument implies that everything is purely mathematical. By that reasoning, i can define my table in formulae, so my table must be a purely mathematical idea.

Again, Gen-X's point that we will never truly understand higher dimensions, is a valid point. Our brains are simply not equipped to deal with the thinking involved. We are 4D beings and cannot comprehend anything more. Oh we can try and understand, but we will never truly KNOW.

Taking the example of the 2D being not being able to see a pencil approaching from 3D space. Some of you are obviously failing to grasp this idea. I will try and explain it a bit more clearly than Gen-X did. Imagine the 2D world. The following diagram shows the 2D world.

Code:

---

-------------
'    O    '
'    -|-    '
'    / \    '
-------------

---

Now i will turn flip this diagram so it is like looking at the edge of a piece of papper, And add the pencil.

'|' represents the flat world

Code:

---

                |                  |
                |                  |
Pencil ------->  |        Pencil ---|---->
                |                  |
                |                  |

'Fig.1.                    Fig.2.

---

The person dwelling 2D space can only see what is on their 'Flat' world. Anything not contained in the '|' cannot be seen. i.e Fig.1. When the pencil passes through the flat world, Fig.2., the 2D being will see the following

Code:

---

-------------
'    O    '
' .  -|-    '
'    / \    '
-------------

---

Where '.' is the hole made by the pencil.

This is why we will never be able to SEE objects in higher dimensions, we will only ever see the effect caused by them in our 4D world.

And no i am not talking bullshit either. I have read up on String theory, though it was a couple of years ago now. There is an excellent book called Hyperspace that explains it all, and i reckon Gen-X has read it judging by his arguments.

As for the Tenth dimension, it has been postulated that it is actually Heven and Hell. Belive what you will though.

Anything clearer now?

Quote:

---

Again, Gen-X's point that we will never truly understand higher dimensions, is a valid point. Our brains are simply not equipped to deal with the thinking involved. We are 4D beings and cannot comprehend anything more. Oh we can try and understand, but we will never truly KNOW.

---

I see, that everyone is having each other misunderstood because of the word "dimensions" which is ambiguous.

Let me explain dimensions here:
You're mixing up mathematical dimensions with dimensions of space. Mathematical dimensions can be how many as you want there to be. But for space:

3 dimensions. Three, not 4 10 or 26. Because space is room and room coordinates can be specified in 3 accurate dimensions. Also these dimensions can all be relatively applied on universe, for as far as we know we have not found any origo or base vectors in universe. So we can't say "this is the X vector", only mathematically.

So when you say 4d space, we have spacetime, and that's mathematical not real. And Gen-x stop trying to say math doesn't apply to real universe because of that it's almost always simplification. What you need to understand is what is relevant or not.

Nice drawings iain, but you should know you're just discussing mathematical dimensions. If we were to live in a 5d world and exist in at (0,0) in the two external dimensions, i would take this as plain stupidity in real universe. while two dimensions are connected to universe, space we have a free movement in the other three, the original vectors of those must interfere with the two others or we would create a angled vectors, creating a mathematical theory. And without known angles, how can we possibly have nonfixed values within space and fixed in the two other dimensions. Space is 3-dimensioned, believe your eyes or press the "ESC" key to exit your life.

I am sorry that i am the one that is going to pull the wool from your eyes Kedaman, but i am going to have to correct you a little.

You claim that you can give the co-ordinates of any object that exists in our space, to coin your phrase. Well i agree with you partly, the bit you have wrong is claiming to be able to define that position in 3 co-ordinates. I will explain why you can't

x = length
y = width
z = depth
t = time

Now i will give the co-ordinates of an object using your 3D space. Lets say my table exists at

x=100, y=500, z=0

Just take that as an example. The problem is that the table was not there 100 years ago, and will probably not be there in 100 years time. To exactly pinpoint the table, we need to specify the time at which it is there.

x=100, y=500, z=0, t=2000

Quote:

---

If we were to live in a 5d world and exist in at (0,0) in the two external dimensions, i would take this as plain stupidity in real universe

---

You can specify any point in our universe using those 4 co-ordinates. We don't define a fifth co-ordinate for us, as we do not live in 5D space.


Now i never claimed that we live in 5D space, though i do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional. It is not 3D as you so claim. If the world we lived in was only 3 dimensional we would be stuck in the one place, not thinking, not moving, not aging. We need time. We live inside this universe so we are 4 dimensional beings. The other dimensions are outside our universe if you like. Layered if you want to picture it like that. Each layer containing the dimensions below it, but not the ones above it.

5D beings, if there are any, can obviously enter our universe. Think about it. A 2D being can go in just one dimension as well as the both. We can move in 1D just as we can move in 2D, 3D and 4D. So logically a 5D being will be able to move in all 5 dimensions.

The Reason I say that a Dimension is a purley mathemetical Idea is that we don't live in a specified number of dimensions, Clasical physics says 3, special relitivity 4, general relitivity 5, string theory 10 or 26, and there are thousands of other less widley accepted theories which say other numbers, seeing as I havn't read string theory or general relitivity I'm happy with 4.

The definition of N dimensional space is that you can't specify N+1 linearly independant vectors in N Dimensional Space.

in 3 dimensions this means that if you give me any four directions I can pick values X,Y and Z sutch that I can go X metres in one Direction, then Y metres in another, Z metres in the 3rd then I can get back to where I started by travaling only in the fourth Direction. (one of X,Y and Z is allowed to be -ve but none can be zero.)

I don't know how much sense that makes, I've tried to describe it using as little maths as possible but I think even GenX will agree that this is a very mathsy idea and can't be described properly without maths.

The Idea of a dimension is a mathematical Idea, you can understand what 0, 1, 2 or 3 dimensions is, if you inclusde
time you can sort of grasp 4, but this is because our universe can be approximated to a 3 Dimensional Space, and sort of approximated to 4.

String theory obviously explains a few things by approximating the universe to 10 or 26 dimensions, I'm sure it has some good reasons for doing this but that doesn't mean there are 26 Dimensions, it just means that's one way of looking at it.

Dimensions are simply tools to make maths easier, they arn't physical object any more than numbers are physical obects.

Recently I have been reading a science book (gasp of surprise from the audience :D )

It went through the foundations of atoms, the discovery of the electron, quarks, mesons, gluons, gravitons, field theory, electromagnetism and everything else.

Some very interesting things were said in there.

Apparently the scientific minds of the time totally refused to accept that light was generated from a photon and that this photon could be both a WAVE and a PARTICLE... it wasn't until the specifications of Quantum Mechanics that it showed it could act as BOTH when it needed to.

The impressive thing that I got out of all this was the actual size of everything going on... something I dont think we take into account very often. Take a photon for example... here was the quote used to describe how many there are :

"On a sunny day a thousand billion BILLION photons would strike the head of a pin in a single second"

It was discoveries like this which show how photons carry both the electromagnetic force AND the weak chemical force (A theory called the "ElectroWeak Theory") and are the basis for all the Unifying theories that are here today.

It then showed quite clearly that Gravity was carried by a particle in exactly the same way that light is carried by a photon... it isn't fiction, it is documented scientific proof (until such time as we prove otherwise).

If you were to ask a Quantum Mechanic to describe the universe he would say that it is a set of intersecting "fields" where each field there exists only a single type of particle... and that these particles are actually "knots" in the web of forces for that particlar field.

This suggests that matter is not actually solid in any way but is actually BLIPS in the fields of energy for particular fields.

In about the next week or so the book goes into a topic called the "Molecule of Life" and then into evolution... WHen I read that I will start a new topic and explain their findings.

IAIN

Quote:

---

x = length
y = width
z = depth
t = time

---

That's not 3d space, Thats spacetime, I was explaining 3d space, for you that believed time is a dimension to count with space dimensions to alter it with 4d, which is basically just math, not reality.

Quote:

---

though i do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional

---

How consistent you are. Well simply put, don't take math for reality

Quote:

---

Dimensions are simply tools to make maths easier, they arn't physical object any more than numbers are physical obects.

---

And the only thing we can state is that space is 3d in reality.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

And the only thing we can state is that space is 3d in reality.

---

Sorry if I was being unclear, but if we are talking about Space then I will agree that in the usual context of the word it is 3D.

However you must be able to see my point that you can only exactly pinpoint something using space-time.

For everyday use SPACE is fine for specifying where things are, but over a millennia things move and change. We need to specify that an object was there at a specific point in time as well as space, because it may well not be there at a different point in time. Clear?

Quote:

---

though I do believe there are 10 dimensions. Our universe is 4 dimensional

Quote:

---

How consistent you are. Well simply put, don't take math for reality

---

---

Sorry this is my fault, I was being unclear again. Just as you were talking about our visualization of space, I was talking about our visualization of the universe.

What I mean is that the universe we all know and love is 4 dimensional.;) Outside, our concept of the universe lay the other dimensions. I hope I have explained myself a little better this time.

Quote:

---

However you must be able to see my point that you can only exactly pinpoint something using space-time

---

What if I tell you time is not absolute? Then you have to back out because Einteins still stands strong with his Relativity theory.

Quote:

---

What I mean is that the universe we all know and love is 4 dimensional. Outside, our concept of the universe lay the other dimensions. I hope I have explained myself a little better this time.

---

Yes, thanks for doing that. I agree that the four dimensions are pretty acceptable, as math is still as reliable for everyone except Gen-x.

Kedaman

Maths has its place... I have never denied that... but it certainly doesn't hold the vaunted place everyone else keeps saying it does.

Lets look at the Periodic Table.

Mathematical calculations were developed that could determine the atomic weight of elements. The funny thing is that it actually matched!

As new elements were discovered their atomic weight was calculated to match exactly what the Maths said it should... and everyone was happy.

Then all of a sudden one of the elements had slightly MORE weight than what it should of... and another had slightly LESS than what it should of...

Everyone was confused... they put it down to "error" and continued to trust their vaunted mathematics.

At some point later someone discovered the "Neutron" and with this discovery the mathematics used to calculate atomic weight also changed... and now the NEW formula could explain why those 2 elements had different weights than the previous one because they had until previously only assumed Protons existed in the nucleus.

My whole point is that Maths is an AFTERTHOUGHT. It is something that comes along afterwards to collaborate something we have already discovered. It can never be a PROOF... it can only SUPPORT something that is a proof.

Read some more books on science and the discovery of the atom and its internal workings and you will see that although they used mathematics and althought they worked the MATHS was made to FIT what they thought was true... it could never prove something that was not THOUGHT of first and was not VALIDATED by experiment and NOT mathematics.

Its the history of our science, its right in front of you, its the whole reason why we are where we are today... and yet there are so many people in here that continue to dispute it... THAT I don't understand.

Gen-X, why do we break Math and physics apart from each other? And why math an chemistry?

Because we want to separate theories from math. Excuse me Gen-x, but i have to say that

Quote:

---

Maths is an AFTERTHOUGHT

---

is false. Math is truely the most true thing in universe, we could ever imagine, it's physics you're trying to kick out, and physics is science and science is religion and religion is bullshit, as science is bullshit image, what you're actually stating.

Gen-x

Let me explain to you the Idea of a model.

in order to explain the universe we must make a model, that model can be mathematical or non mathematical, in either case this model always has it's limitations, it only applies uunder certain conditions, however the buty of the mathematical model is that you can extend it by the use of mathematical methods, and this extension of the model will hold as long as the original model holds, 2 mathematical models can be combined to make a better model.

You are attributing your distrust of maths to the mistakes of 18th and 19th ecntury chemists who did not have the knowledge of modelling techniques we have today.

a mathematical model is made on observations, from this we can make more predictions, these predictions can be verified by experiment, if they are shown to be true it adds strength to the model, if they are shown to be false it shows that there are flaws in the model.

now I don't know about you but I don't have a particle accelarator in my living room, If I make a prediction I can't verify it by experiment, I just have to assume that the models hold in the situations I use them in.

now if you use a model in one of your arguments, and you use it wrong, or you make an assumption that contradicts a model that holds in the situations you're describing I will correct you, and seeing as all nonclasical models are entirley mathematical and can only be approximated to using non mathematical methods I usually use the maths argument.

you are right when you say that maths can't describe everything, I would have quite a job describing a cat to you entirely in maths. but physics is one of those things that needs maths, as I said Everything in nonclassical physics is a mathematical model If you read a science book It is likley to approximate these mathematical models into forms that the reader can understand, otherwise it wouldn't sell outside of universities.


as for the graviton Idea, you could use 3 Models to describe the situation


1 A changing gravitational field has some particle like qualities, these qualities are manifested in a particle known as the graviton

2 Gravity is transmitted by a particle, a masive object emmits particles in the same way as a bright object emits photons. however rather than having a conventional momentum, which would cause objects to repel they have a -ve momenum hence causing the attraction.

3 Billions upon billions of pico gravitons fly around the universe at 27c bouncing off massive objects, when 2 objects are near each other they block the gravitons from the space inbetween them causing a difference in gravitational pressure and hence an attractive force.


1 is obviously true, however when the graviton model was first described to me it was described more like 2. as I object to the Idea of a -ve momentum as it implies a -ve mass meaning that objects would increce in mass with time. I objected this and you pointed me to a website which suggested 3, I find this model pretty damned unlikley, having thought about it you were probably suggesting 1.

hopefully that's cleared up.

Kedaman

Mathematics is a system of Rules made by man to describe universal principles which have been observed to exist.

How then can the construct be "the most true thing in the universe" when they are our own constructions to describe what we can see and count and observe?

All I am saying should be kicked out is the belief that "Maths can be used to PROVE anything"... which was my point all long. Maths can be used to come up with models and tests and even predictions... but it isn't the maths which confirms the experiments... its the experiments that confirms the maths.

It is that simple... you cannot dispute the fact that "All Mathematical equations relating to the real world are PROVED by observed experimentation".

Sam

Thank you... Your explaination of the use of maths is spot on and I agree with it completely. It is used for models and it is used for predictions.

But did you notice that you wrote "these predictions can be verified by experiment" and not "mathematics PROVES these experiments were correct".

That is the point I have been trying to make here... That Maths is NOT the proof but the method. It does help but you don't write "E=mC2" and say that it PROVES the theory... Instead you do experiments and those experiments PROVES the mathematics.

Does that make sense? Surely you must see that as you yourself actually wrote it.

Maybe my translation of what I am meaning has been lost but my original point was that "Maths cannot provide PROOF". I think it still stands based on what you have said here perfectly.

As for gravitons.... There are more models than the ones you stated including field theory and string theory which shows they are particles but act as waves when in a certain "quanta" (hence quantum physics). It is the weakest of the 4 forces and the hardest to pull into the GUT because the energy levels required to make it similar to the other 3 is amazingly high... actually probably the energy of the Big Bang.

If you wont accept the existance of the graviton unless mathematics shows it then read string theory.

Gen-x I have never thought that maths can provide proof of how the real world works, we agreed this some time ago.

However if you suggest something, I will combine it with an existing model and If I show that it leads to some obsurd conclusion or conflicts with another model I will object strongly to it, (ie your idea of quarks being 5D objects which only come into our space when in 3s conflicts with the uncertainty prncipal and places huge constraints on the way these things can move, on us there are very few constraints on the way we can move. It could be that the physics believed to be true is wrong, but more likley you are oversimplifying or misenterpreting the model you are using, which is where I jump in and tell you you are talking **** and you say that I'm using maths to prove things.

as for gravitons I wwas wondering what model you were saying was true, or if it's another one that I didn't mention, If it's completley ridiculous then I'll just object again, but if it's something like the first one which is gonna be true then I'm happy.

Like you say I do need a stron argument if I'm going to believe something, that's just me, and string theory is on my list of things to read, (you'll notice I have no objections to the 10D model because It's part of string theory is good enough, it's when I think you're misinterpreting a model or just talking crap I object) most theories nowadays are based entirley on mathsbecause it's the only thing we have that comes close to being able to describe the models we come up with.

Maths as a model

While maths can not prove anything in the real world. It can be used to prove or disprove a theory or model of the real world. You all seem well read, so i assume you all know that a hundred and one theories to explain gravity have been proposed. Most of these have been proved wrong by maths, because we keep getting infinite loops appearing which brings down the whole model.

I can see why Sam suggested the fact that Dimensions are a purely mathematical idea. If super-string theory is correct and their are 10 dimensions, then the simple fact of the matter is that they are not just mathematical, but they actually exist. Admittedly the only way we can describe them is through mathematics.

Though even this is limited at the minute. Super-string theory has not yet been completed, because we lack the mathematics to model it. String theory was discovered by accident, when a student physicist was looking through a book of mathematical models trying to find one to explain some idea he had. We now have the theory, but not the maths to describe it. Physicist are having to work back wards for a change. They have the theory, now they need to know how they got there! We are in fact waiting for maths to catch up.

Though some physicists are still sceptical about String Theory actually being a theory. Unless you can prove or disprove a theory experimentally they hold that it is not a theory. Of course most of that thinking went out the window when they realised that they would never be able to experimentally test the theory of creation, but some people still abide by that rule.

Theoretically we might be able to prove string theory one day. At the minute we lack the technology to test it. The estimated amount of energy that we would need to probe higher dimension has been calculated at roughly 100 million times the energy produced in our most powerful atom smashers, or the Plank energy, which i can't remember of the top of my head.

I believe theoretical math is physics and classic math is math. am I wrong?
Ie:

1+1=2 <- Can you proove or disproove it? No, it's a logical operation.
E=mc² <- Can you proove or disproove it? Yes, it's a theory and it can be prooved or disprooved.

I'm not saying you have to do it now, i'm just pointing this out as an example.

AM I WRONG?

Sam

Here are a few of your statements from previous posts.

Quote:

---

Page 1
mathematical proofs, we do not assume anything, we merely define an operation, which is a perfectly valid method of proof.

Page 4
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

Studies of infinity are very valid, they are used to prove some mathematical tools[b/] that we can use to establish physical laws

Maths will always hold if the assumptions don't change

---

So now you say "I have never thought that maths can provide proof of how the real world works". Somehow either I am not picking up on your fine definition of what constitutes a "proof" or you have contradicted yourself.

But I noticed you have now swung from talking about "mathematics" to talking about "models". They are 2 different things. Models are used to "explain" something that has already been studied and experimented and to some extent PROVED. It was not the maths that brought about this proof, but in fact the experimentation that confirmed the maths is correct.

The model I am talking about regarding the graviton is the String Theory model. Partial proof has been found because it explains results that previous models simply couldn't explain. The previous models did reach infinate loops and thus could not explain gravity. This model does NOT resort to infinate loops, contains the correct ordering, dimensions, strengths and sizes of all 4 forces but as Iain has said... the energy required to actually experiment on gravities inclusion is next to impossible.

[a]Iain
The following statement is what I disagreed with when Sam basically said it

Quote:

---

It can be used to prove or disprove a theory or model of the real world

---

Maths CANNOT prove or disprove a theory or model. It is the other way around. It is experimentation results that prove or disprove a MATHEMATICALLY generated model.

Iain. I know you are a reasonable person, so I ask you this :

"Provide for me a Model that is accepted as PROVED that did not have ANY experimentational results from the real world"

If you can do that then I will accept maths as proof, if however all models are based on actual results then I would say to you that the Maths didn't prove it, it was the results that proved the maths.

You are right that there isn't enough energy to actually test the string theory... that level of energy only existed at the big bang and was probably what created it in the first place. But it does however bring up a very interesting point for me :

If it takes that much energy to get OUT of the dimension we are in then doesn't it stand to reason that while we can interact with lower dimensions with next to no energy (we walk around with bits of the 1st dimension all over us as well as the 2nd) we cannot get to higher dimensions.

That matches what I said before about the 2D being not being able to reach the 3D (thus no Z from the perspective of the 2D) but the 3D can interact with the 2D (by creating the Z=0 from the perspective of the 3D).

Kedaman

The only thing I would add to your statement is that there is a lot of theoretical maths at the moment which has nothing to do with physics... its just theoretical maths (although a lot of math theory DOES get used in physics it isn't ALL) and that the proof or disproof for the equasion lies in experimental results CONFIRMING that the equation holds true.

What never happens is people saying "We have this equation and the equation itself proves what is happening in the real world".