I meant for you to clarify "I do tend to say basically a lot in these kinds of matters..."DocZ wrote:
like, basically, going all the way back to the basics?
that'll take a bit too much time... Basically, quantum physics, is really not that hard to understand, its just the freaky mathematics that scare people. My trick is, think about it logically, and the basics start to make sense, basically.
Nervous habit I supposeRosse_modest wrote:
I meant for you to clarify "I do tend to say basically a lot in these kinds of matters..."DocZ wrote:
like, basically, going all the way back to the basics?
that'll take a bit too much time... Basically, quantum physics, is really not that hard to understand, its just the freaky mathematics that scare people. My trick is, think about it logically, and the basics start to make sense, basically.
now let's stop this derailing and get back on track.......
Recently I read something else really "Star Trek" AND according to some very much possible in the near future:
Some scientist stumbled upon the technology of a cloaking device... There's some metal alloy that bends light around it at a certain frequency.... They're still working on it, and they say a practical application isn't yet for tomorrow... They're having some trouble with the doppler effect, so now it's only useful for stationary objects...
AND it takes a crapload of energy to create the laserbeam that activates is....
But cool, isn't it?
So you just talk a lot, that's it? Thought you were trying to say you are an authority on the subject...DocZ wrote:
Nervous habit I supposeRosse_modest wrote:
I meant for you to clarify "I do tend to say basically a lot in these kinds of matters..."DocZ wrote:
like, basically, going all the way back to the basics?
that'll take a bit too much time... Basically, quantum physics, is really not that hard to understand, its just the freaky mathematics that scare people. My trick is, think about it logically, and the basics start to make sense, basically.
now let's stop this derailing and get back on track.......
Recently I read something else really "Star Trek" AND according to some very much possible in the near future:
Some scientist stumbled upon the technology of a cloaking device... There's some metal alloy that bends light around it at a certain frequency.... They're still working on it, and they say a practical application isn't yet for tomorrow... They're having some trouble with the doppler effect, so now it's only useful for stationary objects...
AND it takes a crapload of energy to create the laserbeam that activates is....
But cool, isn't it?
Last edited by Rosse_modest (2006-09-23 12:58:11)
I don't know much about physics....All I know is rabbit's are soft, cute and really really fluffy....(sorry if I lowered the tone, but they are fluffy).
and I enjoy the result of the chemical reaction that accures when le rabbit and hot water are mixed. Throw in some carrots, potatoes, and onions and you have a great feast.Sheky wrote:
I don't know much about physics....All I know is rabbit's are soft, cute and really really fluffy....(sorry if I lowered the tone, but they are fluffy).
They're supposed to breed and create more fluffyness, not be eaten you barbarian!!! Besides, rabbit tastes a lot like chicken anyway so why not pick chick instead?spacebandit72 wrote:
and I enjoy the result of the chemical reaction that accures when le rabbit and hot water are mixed. Throw in some carrots, potatoes, and onions and you have a great feast.Sheky wrote:
I don't know much about physics....All I know is rabbit's are soft, cute and really really fluffy....(sorry if I lowered the tone, but they are fluffy).
Eating them prevents the world from being over-run by fluffyness. Their skins also make great pouches for your scrabble stones.Rosse_modest wrote:
They're supposed to breed and create more fluffyness, not be eaten you barbarian!!! Besides, rabbit tastes a lot like chicken anyway so why not pick chick instead?spacebandit72 wrote:
and I enjoy the result of the chemical reaction that accures when le rabbit and hot water are mixed. Throw in some carrots, potatoes, and onions and you have a great feast.Sheky wrote:
I don't know much about physics....All I know is rabbit's are soft, cute and really really fluffy....(sorry if I lowered the tone, but they are fluffy).
I don't have scrabble stones and there's no such thing as too much fluffyness!!!TuataraDude wrote:
Eating them prevents the world from being over-run by fluffyness. Their skins also make great pouches for your scrabble stones.Rosse_modest wrote:
They're supposed to breed and create more fluffyness, not be eaten you barbarian!!! Besides, rabbit tastes a lot like chicken anyway so why not pick chick instead?spacebandit72 wrote:
and I enjoy the result of the chemical reaction that accures when le rabbit and hot water are mixed. Throw in some carrots, potatoes, and onions and you have a great feast.
I have also heard that if a 50 megaton Nuke missle was fired into Jupiter it will ignite the compressed hydrogen in the atmosphere and create another sun. Lets try that theory out if the particle smasher thing doesn't destroy us.
I hope you're joking.Major_Spittle wrote:
I have also heard that if a 50 megaton Nuke missle was fired into Jupiter it will ignite the compressed hydrogen in the atmosphere and create another sun. Lets try that theory out if the particle smasher thing doesn't destroy us.
Thats no joke. Hydrogen is very volitile. Ex. Bimps. They switched to Helium, becuase hydrogen kept blowing up... lolPRiMACORD wrote:
I hope you're joking.Major_Spittle wrote:
I have also heard that if a 50 megaton Nuke missle was fired into Jupiter it will ignite the compressed hydrogen in the atmosphere and create another sun. Lets try that theory out if the particle smasher thing doesn't destroy us.
Yes it is a joke.pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:
Thats no joke. Hydrogen is very volitile. Ex. Bimps. They switched to Helium, becuase hydrogen kept blowing up... lolPRiMACORD wrote:
I hope you're joking.Major_Spittle wrote:
I have also heard that if a 50 megaton Nuke missle was fired into Jupiter it will ignite the compressed hydrogen in the atmosphere and create another sun. Lets try that theory out if the particle smasher thing doesn't destroy us.
A comet (shoemaker levy 9) hit Jupiter a little over a decade ago. The impacts released 6,000,000 megatons of energy, a little more then 50 megatons.
Jupiter is far too small to become a star.
What an astoundingly scientific observation on your part, insulting someone's learning capacity on the internet. But it is a somewhat reasonable comparison. A bum could be chewing gunk off of pennies for years without getting sick, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.therealnicoli wrote:
Yes! how "appropriate"! Lets bulid a giant particle accelorater in space! Scientists have been smashing particles together for years! And the bit about the penny, not really a reasonable comparison is it! Your not going to learn anything amazingly new are you?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Exactly. Experiments like these should be conducted off-world, for whatever protection that offers.basetballjones wrote:
We may be looking at the answer to this issue right now, but i do agree that deep space would be a more appropriate place.
Scientist will admit they know very little about the universe, but they know alot about universal laws. The same formulae that map the characteristics of gravity on earth, define the characteristics of objects elsewhere. The laws that apply to light in our system are carried throughout the galaxy.
Some laws are universal throughout the universe and we can use this knowledge to very accurately predict or theorize. The only way to "prove" that dimensional travel is possible is to do it, yes.. but if the set, known formulae prove it to be true, then it is 99.9% likely true. Much in the same way we know that this chemical will react with this chemical to form the molecules of this chemical, we know how nature acts even when we can't see it easily.
If there was a 99.99999999% chance you wouldn't get AIDS from licking a freshly-dropped penny to see how it tasted, would you still do it? Even if you didn't, you may contract some other or even as of yet unknown disease. And besides which, "universal law" as known by human science seems to change from age to age.
Honestly, what's wrong with a bit of caution? I would love for research like this to be moved off-world, in case something does happen that's speculated on in their cute little guides. While I don't expect them to be building giant particle accelerators in space any time soon, it and other stations for physics research are fucking worthy goals to move forward to, regardless of the minimal risk posed by theoretical paperwork.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-23 19:12:27)
Owww. People who can't figure out the shortest distance between two points are trying to argue about theoretical physics... Please, let it end!
The torture will continue unaltered.vanmani wrote:
Owww. People who can't figure out the shortest distance between two points are trying to argue about theoretical physics... Please, let it end!
I could easily argue that the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line, but rather a wavy, demented line (general relativity).vanmani wrote:
Owww. People who can't figure out the shortest distance between two points are trying to argue about theoretical physics... Please, let it end!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
as to the quotes about blowing up the earth all i can do is think of doug adams hichhikers guild to the universe when the alien said bypass's have to be built don't they?
I subscribe to objectivism.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
I can hear and I do think for myself. I was only hard on you because I have noticed a trend in your response to anyone of faith. I believe in God but I also respect and believe in science.TrollmeaT wrote:
I don't mind the mention of God, its the insipid comments that follow... thanks for the sympathies but I have no need for them.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
so trollmeat I take it you don't like anyone mentioning God. You must have suffered severe trauma has a wee lad? And now your feelings of complete and utter inadequacy rule your every thought. Yeah it must suck being you... you have my sympathies.
It's great to be me because I have a great love for life & love living it without being blinded by what someone tells me to believe in with no proof.
I would suggest to keep your mind open to every possibility in life & never to be afraid to change your views, but I fear that it would be wasted words on someone that cannot hear.
Who created God?
How did matter just come to exist?
Where did the energy come from?
something had to be created whatever you subscribe to...it's mind boggling and even our brightest scientist's admit they don't understand.
So is it easier just to believe in God and go about your merry way? NO you say? I can understand that also.
Just a few of the questions I ponder.
The basic principles of Objectivism are as follows;
Metaphysics -rejects any belief in the supernatural -- and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology -rejects mysticism {any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge}, and it rejects skepticism {the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.}
Human Nature -rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate,upbringing,genes,or economic conditions.)
Ethics -rejects any form of altruism -- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics -rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
and Esthetics
thanks again to Ayn Rand for her books & genius which I am just now coming to understand with a great zeal.
So you actually believe in the supernatural and the like, even moreso than real "believers"... You first have to ACCEPT it exists before you can reject it.... By definition one cannot reject what does not exist...TrollmeaT wrote:
I subscribe to objectivism.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
I can hear and I do think for myself. I was only hard on you because I have noticed a trend in your response to anyone of faith. I believe in God but I also respect and believe in science.TrollmeaT wrote:
I don't mind the mention of God, its the insipid comments that follow... thanks for the sympathies but I have no need for them.
It's great to be me because I have a great love for life & love living it without being blinded by what someone tells me to believe in with no proof.
I would suggest to keep your mind open to every possibility in life & never to be afraid to change your views, but I fear that it would be wasted words on someone that cannot hear.
Who created God?
How did matter just come to exist?
Where did the energy come from?
something had to be created whatever you subscribe to...it's mind boggling and even our brightest scientist's admit they don't understand.
So is it easier just to believe in God and go about your merry way? NO you say? I can understand that also.
Just a few of the questions I ponder.
The basic principles of Objectivism are as follows;
Metaphysics -rejects any belief in the supernatural -- and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology -rejects mysticism {any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge}, and it rejects skepticism {the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.}
Human Nature -rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate,upbringing,genes,or economic conditions.)
Ethics -rejects any form of altruism -- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics -rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
and Esthetics
thanks again to Ayn Rand for her books & genius which I am just now coming to understand with a great zeal.
Think about it...
By the way, the shortest distance between two points in space is not a straight line or a wavy one... The shortest distance is actually ZERO. Space folding 101... We only need the technology to create a stable wormhole...
You got it all wrong. You would be right if he had said he rejects the supernatural, in which case he acknowledges its existence but chooses to disregard it anyway. But he said he rejects the belief in the supernatural indicating that he does not hold the supernatural to exist at all. He does acknowledge that there is a belief in the supernatural, but he denies the existence of the supernatural itself.DocZ wrote:
So you actually believe in the supernatural and the like, even moreso than real "believers"... You first have to ACCEPT it exists before you can reject it.... By definition one cannot reject what does not exist...TrollmeaT wrote:
I subscribe to objectivism.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
I can hear and I do think for myself. I was only hard on you because I have noticed a trend in your response to anyone of faith. I believe in God but I also respect and believe in science.
Who created God?
How did matter just come to exist?
Where did the energy come from?
something had to be created whatever you subscribe to...it's mind boggling and even our brightest scientist's admit they don't understand.
So is it easier just to believe in God and go about your merry way? NO you say? I can understand that also.
Just a few of the questions I ponder.
The basic principles of Objectivism are as follows;
Metaphysics -rejects any belief in the supernatural -- and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology -rejects mysticism {any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge}, and it rejects skepticism {the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.}
Human Nature -rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate,upbringing,genes,or economic conditions.)
Ethics -rejects any form of altruism -- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics -rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
and Esthetics
thanks again to Ayn Rand for her books & genius which I am just now coming to understand with a great zeal.
Think about it...
Belief in x does not equal x.
Last edited by Rosse_modest (2006-09-24 07:43:42)
Can you outline your take on quantum physics?DocZ wrote:
like, basically, going all the way back to the basics?
that'll take a bit too much time... Basically, quantum physics, is really not that hard to understand, its just the freaky mathematics that scare people. My trick is, think about it logically, and the basics start to make sense, basically.
Last edited by Vub (2006-09-24 07:53:06)
oultine my take on quantum physics:Vub wrote:
Can you outline your take on quantum physics?DocZ wrote:
like, basically, going all the way back to the basics?
that'll take a bit too much time... Basically, quantum physics, is really not that hard to understand, its just the freaky mathematics that scare people. My trick is, think about it logically, and the basics start to make sense, basically.
That'll take a while, but I'll give it a try to make a "ten-second" version...
While reading up on various topics in the field of quantum physics, I always try to make a mental experiment to visualise what they're talking about... I won't go as far as to presume i can disprove their theories, or even that I'm good ad maths, but one thing I've got going for a lot is logic. So I implement that in a lot of what they say. People always say mathematics is "THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE".... Well I think it's not, for one, I don't speak it. The one language EVERYONE understands is logic. Everybody can grasp logic to a certain point, so...
One of the basic pillars of quantum physics is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Now he was a smart one, he didn't go by the narrow dogmatic views of his peers. And nowadays people accept Einsteins Theory of Relativity as the absolute truth... Wrong! Einstein himself said it was only a theory and that one should not take everything at face value. So I like to think like he does.... out of the box, so to speak.
Example: If one travels by the speed of light, and you travel one lightyear, turn around and come back, you have only traveled for 2 years, agreed? Now according to the dogmas of quantum physics they say that on earth a couple thousand years would have gone by. Some version of the Einstein's ToR.
Well, now I can't accept that.. You can prove anything you want with numbers and maths, but that don't impress me. I say that according to the universal laws of logic time, speed and distance are still completely different things that do not influence one another. So I can't accept their dogmatic views on lightspeed or faster... I just say two years travel time = unversal time gone by, since time is a constant. They may be right, I may be right.
That's the pickle with quantum physics and quantum mechanics, they're still just theoretical... Nobody really knows if their theories are true or not...
And as I said, I am not a mathematician, I do not presume to know everything there is to know about quantum sciences. I just see things differently, like Einstein always said: "think like a child, and ask questions accordingly, if you want to solve the problem"