Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 198 of 198
Like Tree44Likes

Thread: How to make a Universe out of Nothing. You decide.

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    This might not make any sense.Something from nothing can be found in geometry.Further study is Phthagoreas.And Comparative observations from Einstin.Something coming into existance from noware and nothing is very interesting.

    Strange and PhDemon like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Ok Strange. You go back to post 97, and rewrite it into a new post, using logic and not definition. I look forward to you're revised version.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Ok Strange. You go back to post 97, and rewrite it into a new post, using logic and not definition. I look forward to you're revised version.
    Huh? It is a definition. I don't know where you expect logic to be applied. And I am not going to do your work for you.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Using "syllogisms" for that? Seriously?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Using "syllogisms" for that? Seriously?
    No. I don't see how.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Then, to be more concise, we would accept this statement as a truth? (in respect to the argument) as we have no other choice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Then, to be more concise, we would accept this statement as a truth? (in respect to the argument) as we have no other choice?
    I am willing to accept it as your definition of nothing as a basis for the rest of your argument. (I am not willing to accept it as "truth" in any absolute sense.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Off pitch Strange... Why was that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    I don't expect you to answer... Think about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Moving on, Does everyone else agree with this, even though Strange quite rightly said "I am not willing to accept this as "truth" in any absolute sense"? (If I may use your quote Strange)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Moving on, Does everyone else agree with this, even though Strange quite rightly said "I am not willing to accept this as "truth" in any absolute sense"? (If I may use your quote Strange)
    FFS....get on with it.

    Last time I looked, this is a science forum, not a scientist's forum. Personally I don't have one shred of evidence that tells me if any of the members are scientists. Since I have no proof I must either assume that everyone here is a scientist or there are none at all. I lean towards the latter because of a lack of evidence for the former. I don't expect to witness any sort of proper scientific protocol, nor do I expect too many true scientists to even bother posting in a layman's forum. For the scientist, I see no redeeming value in calling a layman out because they didn't define something or didn't select the right category. If, as I assume, everyone is a layman then I find little reason to try and insert scientific protocol into the process. Laymen understand other laymen are attempting, they speak the same language, so even if you are a bonafide scientist and it irks you beyond belief to read what people post then you just don't understand where you are, a public forum open to discussion about things scientific. People are trying their damnedest to participate in a way they feel is proper, so it's not such an egregious error when they don't. Not worthy of 100+ posts. If your a scientist and you are annoyed by how a layperson phrases their post then don't take it literally, react in a skeptical manner. Reacting as if the poor slob who took an interest is some kind of science charlatan worthy of complete and utter flaming defeats the purpose of a public forum. If the poster was a scientist and the flamer as well then by all means go at it but for shit's sake, how does anyone really know? What should we expect from a common layman trying to ask a question or jot down an idea in a science forum open to the public? Personally I don't expect the next Einstein to be posting here.

    I just get tired of this shit. Time to take another leave of absence.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    What do we know about the universe around us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    What do we know about the universe around us?
    An enormous amount. People study science for years to only learn a very specialised area. (I assume you are not actually expecting anyone to summarise all human knowledge for you.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    You are right.There is so much knowlege.But just messing around,and I am about to be banned from the forum with ducks flying over.How much do we really know?Matter attracts and clumps together in space.It then forms spheres and spins.When it gets to big it glows and emits energy.So everything smaller is shapeless and should be disregarded.No there are plants and animals and oceans and even the possability of alien saucers flying between galaxies and space communications.Man does not know how any of these things work.Enormous is relative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    I am about to be banned from the forum
    If this sort of ignorant nonsense is typical of your posts then that may be true.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    OK,To create a universe from nothing.All physical properties comming into existance would be undefined.Therfore infinite.Infinite size .Infinite shape.Infinite motion.Infinite speed.Infinite quantity.It would be interesting to see how it was done in the real world.I wouldn't go so far as to say ignorant.Things might seem to be nonsense,true,But that is the way i really see them.For example,man invents the wheel Newton comes along then Einstine and Francis and Cricke Gmos protien folding Darwin Mendeleve sonic the hedgehog.What a name.The torch of enlightment in the vast dark universe?I'm not too ignorant.Aceptability is a different thing.For example,global warming,is ignorant.The planet earth has gone through periodic ice ages every million years.Ocean rises up freeses over all the way down to the equator.Man came into existance after the last ice ended,about a million years ago,give or take a few thousand years.Do the math is that is too much to ask.We woulden't know how to deal with global warming concidering we are so used to ice ages.This view is not acceptable.But it is still not ignorant.Sometimes hard work pays off.And sometimes keeping an open mind allows for more knowledge,and less ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    All physical properties comming into existance would be undefined.Therfore infinite.
    Undefined does not imply infinite.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say ignorant.Things might seem to be nonsense,true,But that is the way i really see them.
    Yep. Ignorant nonsense.

    And sometimes keeping an open mind allows for more knowledge,and less ignorance.
    In some cases, it seems being too open minded leads to total idiocy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    Seeming idiocy?For example matter clumps together in gravitation because it wants it's mother,seems very idiodic,But it is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    I'm not too ignorant.
    The available evidence would indicate that you're mistaken on this.

    We woulden't know how to deal with global warming concidering we are so used to ice ages.
    Given that, by your own statement,
    Man came into existance after the last ice ended
    why would we be used to ice ages?
    This view is not acceptable.But it is still not ignorant.
    Yet you've just shown that it is.

    And sometimes keeping an open mind allows for more knowledge,and less ignorance.
    How would you know?

    I'm still wondering how a self-declared genius manages to commit so many spelling mistakes in a single post.
    Presumably that's the "hard work" paying off for you.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    23
    Spelling doesn't seem that important to me.True it is a convienince to the reader that things are spelled right.Mostly it is the ideas expressed.For example someone with another language could not post here.Would his language be wrong?Enlighten me Mr.Duck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Pot Raost View Post
    Spelling doesn't seem that important to me.
    Yeah, neither is thinking, apparently.

    True it is a convienince to the reader that things are spelled right.
    It's also an indication that you care enough about your point to make it legible and easily comprehensible to the reader.

    Mostly it is the ideas expressed.
    Agreed.
    But when those "ideas" are bullshit then all that's left is the spelling, neh?

    For example someone with another language could not post here.Would his language be wrong?Enlighten me Mr.Duck.
    It's an English language forum: ergo one should post in English.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    In fact, Pot Roast, I'll have to ask you post in English, but not in the main sections from now on. This is not the section to post random thoughts and personal "theories". We have the pseudoscience, New Hypothesis and Trash sections for that. Any further posts along the same line here will be removed.

    Thanks in advance.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Personally I don't have one shred of evidence that tells me if any of the members are scientists.
    I, for one, am not. I am merely an interested layman, which probably holds true for the vast majority of members here.

    nor do I expect too many true scientists to even bother posting in a layman's forum
    Quite right.

    I find little reason to try and insert scientific protocol into the process
    I beg to differ on this. While the participants aren't scientists, the subject matter of the discussion is science; as such, at least a minimum amount of scientific protocol is required, or else this ceases to be a science forum, and becomes a personal blog and battle field of personal insults, as happened for example on SciForums.com. We don't want to go down that route.

    What should we expect from a common layman trying to ask a question or jot down an idea in a science forum open to the public?
    We should expect him/her to listen to the answers given, and learn from them. Here is where genuine enquirers distinguish themselves from cranks - the former acknowledge the answers given and learn from them, whereas the latter reject them and simply continue on with their ramblings, as if nothing had been said at all.

    Time to take another leave of absence.
    That's a pity, but perhaps understandable. From time to time I get phases where I grow very frustrated too, mainly over the same old chestnuts being chewed on over and over and over again by different cranks. At those times it happens that I make posts which are just a little more snappy than I really intended them to be, or that I label someone a crank too early on in the discussion. I usually regret it afterwards, and more than once in the last few years had I to send a note of apology via PM to other members because I felt really bad. I think all this is normal for active participants on science forums.

    Let your mind rest and come back when you feel ready.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Personally I don't have one shred of evidence that tells me if any of the members are scientists.
    I, for one, am not. I am merely an interested layman, which probably holds true for the vast majority of members here.

    nor do I expect too many true scientists to even bother posting in a layman's forum
    Quite right.

    I find little reason to try and insert scientific protocol into the process
    I beg to differ on this. While the participants aren't scientists, the subject matter of the discussion is science; as such, at least a minimum amount of scientific protocol is required, or else this ceases to be a science forum, and becomes a personal blog and battle field of personal insults, as happened for example on SciForums.com. We don't want to go down that route.

    What should we expect from a common layman trying to ask a question or jot down an idea in a science forum open to the public?
    We should expect him/her to listen to the answers given, and learn from them. Here is where genuine enquirers distinguish themselves from cranks - the former acknowledge the answers given and learn from them, whereas the latter reject them and simply continue on with their ramblings, as if nothing had been said at all.

    Time to take another leave of absence.
    That's a pity, but perhaps understandable. From time to time I get phases where I grow very frustrated too, mainly over the same old chestnuts being chewed on over and over and over again by different cranks. At those times it happens that I make posts which are just a little more snappy than I really intended them to be, or that I label someone a crank too early on in the discussion. I usually regret it afterwards, and more than once in the last few years had I to send a note of apology via PM to other members because I felt really bad. I think all this is normal for active participants on science forums.

    Let your mind rest and come back when you feel ready.
    You are always so helpful.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    What should we expect from a common layman trying to ask a question or jot down an idea in a science forum open to the public?
    We should expect him/her to listen to the answers given, and learn from them. Here is where genuine enquirers distinguish themselves from cranks - the former acknowledge the answers given and learn from them, whereas the latter reject them and simply continue on with their ramblings, as if nothing had been said at all.
    I think the expectation is way too high. Cranks are obviously something a forum like this should expect but to begin the crank labelling process because a member didn't follow proper scientific protocol is over the top. The poor bugger who began this thread never expected to have to jump through or over as many loops and obstacles as were placed in his way. He just wanted to put out an idea he had about nothing. Would a layperson care about what kind of nothing he's referring to. No effin' way. Maybe he shouldn't have made a game of it and just blurted it out. I think a lot of people want to hear what he has to say but because someone is pointing out he didn't follow procedure in a forum where that shouldn't be expected, they are intimidated, not wishing to fan the flames in their direction.

    Obviously some know more than others, this is not unexpected. However some could be pretending to be something they are not. How do I know if some of our more respected analysts aren't crank themselves? This is the risk one takes when joining a non-scientist specific forum. Ambiguity exists at both ends of the spectrum, no one can be sure of anything.

    Personally I can take it. I know where I am and I'm not afraid. Insults don't bother me and you can point out one error after another to me. None of that stuff bothers me. I'll admit to a mistake or stand to be corrected. Would I be more intimidated at a scientist convention, you're damn right I would. The layperson has to only understand one thing, don't commit. Have your say and wait for it. If a true scientist answers then there's a good chance he/she won't be talking protocol. It's not worth the effort when you are amongst an army of laypersons. Shut the cranks down if they can't take an answer otherwise it's just wasting a reader's time.

    Forgot to mention that I have a lot of respect for Markus as well as some others. However the truth still remains, no one really knows if the qualifications of anyone is legitimate. It's just something we all have to judge.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; September 16th, 2013 at 11:38 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    but to begin the crank labelling process because a member didn't follow proper scientific protocol is over the top.
    That's not what I said or implied should be done; my statement was rather about how someone behaves once something has been explained to him, or once he has been corrected. Or in other words - is someone prepared to learn and advance him/herself ? Or is he stuck in a certain way of thinking despite the fact that he was shown wrong ? This hasn't really much to do with protocols, in my mind - it's a matter of attitude to learning. I am speaking in general now, not with any specific member or even discussion in mind.

    How do I know if some of our more respected analysts aren't crank themselves?
    Simply by going through their posting history; everything that goes on here is a matter of public record. All the things we say can either be verified against proper sources ( such as textbooks ), or not. Personally, I think this bit is actually rather easy; 95% I say and claim can be found in standard textbooks, and I can always cite proper sources if needed. The same can not be said for our resident anti-relativity, pro-aether, free energy and who knows what else cranks.

    I'll admit to a mistake or stand to be corrected.
    Same for me. I have been wrong on plenty of occasions, sometimes quite embarrassingly so - but I was never afraid to admit it and learn from it. Again, this is a matter of public record. In fact, I don't know about you guys, but learning from others and my own mistakes is one of the reasons why I am here.

    Shut the cranks down if they can't take an answer
    Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to an answer given.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Forgot to mention that I have a lot of respect for Markus as well as some others. However the truth still remains, no one really knows if the qualifications of anyone is legitimate. It's just something we all have to judge.
    Well, thank you
    However, I have said it on countless occasions before, and I say it again here : I don't have any qualifications in science. All my knowledge, understanding, and occasional lack thereof, is the result of self-study. But my point still stands - I can back up what I say here, and I will always acknowledge when I have been shown wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    However, I have said it on countless occasions before, and I say it again here : I don't have any qualifications in science. All my knowledge, understanding, and occasional lack thereof, is the result of self-study.
    Which I find very odd. Someone with your interest and knowledge should definitely be in the given scientific field.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    However, I have said it on countless occasions before, and I say it again here : I don't have any qualifications in science. All my knowledge, understanding, and occasional lack thereof, is the result of self-study. But my point still stands - I can back up what I say here, and I will always acknowledge when I have been shown wrong.

    And I thought you had at least a PhD in physics.
    It is extraordinary what some people can know and comprehend if they devote themselves to learning.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    How do I know if some of our more respected analysts aren't cranks themselves?
    Simply by going through their posting history; everything that goes on here is a matter of public record. All the things we say can either be verified against proper sources ( such as textbooks ), or not. Personally, I think this bit is actually rather easy; 95% I say and claim can be found in standard textbooks, and I can always cite proper sources if needed. The same can not be said for our resident anti-relativity, pro-aether, free energy and who knows what else cranks.
    I was probably stretching it but the truth remains that any crank can also google or reference a text. I don't think there is just one mould for cranks. Once someone shares garnered information then they are left with no choice but to defend it.

    If there was a listing of the known scientists for this forum then someone like Markus would have to take a back seat despite his passion for science. He'd be a regular who just nods his head in agreement or not. How could he argue against qualifications?

    Can anyone think of a famous scientist who was once labelled a crank, charlatan if you prefer?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,082
    Zinj,

    Card-carrying scientists can talk just as much rubbish as the next person; indeed, they often do. A Ph.D does not make one immune from the dumbs.

    The level of discussion we have here is, more often than not, entry level to undergraduate level and does not require insane levels of technical knowledge. Members like Markus don't need to take a back seat at all (if ever) for the vast majority of stuff talked about here. Even if a professional researcher was involved in a discussion, our topics are often either general enough, or just quite basic, that anyone with decent knowledge can make good, and often excellent, contributions. Since Markus is not in the habit of talking nonsense (that I can tell) there would be no need at all for him to cower meekly in the corner while a Ph.D takes over the discussion. If he did make a boob, I'm sure he'd welcome a polite correction.

    I mostly stalk the Biology forum. In the years I've been here I've seen very little that could not be found in a decent undergrad textbook. Stuff not in such books is likely to be either news items or plain silly (tons of the latter). Advanced-level topics in biology are often scary-hard and are just not suitable for a forum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    I mostly stalk the Biology forum. In the years I've been here I've seen very little that could not be found in a decent undergrad textbook. Stuff not in such books is likely to be either news items or plain silly (tons of the latter). Advanced-level topics in biology are often scary-hard and are just not suitable for a forum like this.

    I cannot but agree with this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Forgot to mention that I have a lot of respect for Markus as well as some others. However the truth still remains, no one really knows if the qualifications of anyone is legitimate. It's just something we all have to judge.
    Well, thank you
    However, I have said it on countless occasions before, and I say it again here : I don't have any qualifications in science. All my knowledge, understanding, and occasional lack thereof, is the result of self-study. But my point still stands - I can back up what I say here, and I will always acknowledge when I have been shown wrong.
    You know Markus believe it or not I have a lot of respect for you and Strange for the most part. I enjoy reading the posts and I enjoy the debating you guys do with others. Where I don't is when you act like you did in post#131 " Shut the cranks down if they can't take an answer" Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to MY answer given." (FIFY) What you mean is you don't like it when someone can't except your descriptions or answers. God forbid someone should question the status quo. Then you hide behind the status quo claiming those cranks are not willing to except your answer just because they want to argue for no reason. Your the one that can't except that there are others (far more than I) that question this status quo and not because I think I know something specific or that I have some new hypotheses but just for the fact that the answers are not good enough. Not only are they not good enough but most are incomplete. The reason I became so interested in cosmology in the first place was because of all these unanswered questions. You can spend your whole life only excepting the status quo if you want to but not everyone else has to. Really I would like you for once to buck the trend and tell me where you think the standard models have gone wrong. Do you have an opinion or is it all just the status quo forever?
    Respectfully
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You would have to show that this "Status Quo" exists and is not, in fact, a product of understanding the science instead of entertaining misconceptions.
    Questioning it is fine, if you're willing to learn about it. But when the crank is unwilling to learn, unwilling to accept that they are in error- Dingle Style- then they don't get any respect for claiming it is a "Status Quo" they are up against, rather than their own ignorance.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You would have to show that this "Status Quo" exists and is not, in fact, a product of understanding the science
    You can believe what you want but your only kidding yourself if you think I'm the only one questioning what you can't. A lot smarter people than you or I are also questioning it. Hey I just noticed I've been upgraded to Forum Senior now you gotta believe me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    You can believe what you want but your only kidding yourself if you think I'm the only one questioning what you can't. A lot smarter people than you or I are also questioning it.
    The fallacies here are telling...
    Let's look:
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    You can believe what you want
    Yes, I can. But 'belief' is not the relevant issue here- Education and understanding of known theory or principles is the issue. Belief will not alter the laws of physics. By making this into an issue about belief, you are trying to maneuver the topic into a seeming argument over beliefs- which require a belief system and is not employing evidence or the scientific method.
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    but your only kidding yourself if you think I'm the only one questioning what you can't.
    There are several assumptions here- the most delusional being the one that "I cannot question what you can question."
    Utter nonsense. I can question things just fine, but questioning things does not automatically equal correctness. I can question the validity of a mathematical proof and thump my chest for the effort- and still be an idiot that refuses to understand the mathematical proof. The assumption that others that do understand the mathematical proof must be incapable of questioning it really falls down in light of the mathematical proof itself- which is outside of, oblivious of and irrelevant to our ego's.
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    A lot smarter people than you or I are also questioning it.
    A lot of people smarter than me are questioning your assumed and invented "Status Quo?"

    Don't these geniuses have anything better to do with their time?

    A lot of fallacious bluster but you failed to show "The Status Quo" as I had asked you to do. Let's not play stupid and just silently be aware of why you wormed your way out of doing so.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Which I find very odd. Someone with your interest and knowledge should definitely be in the given scientific field.
    Well, when I was young I made my choices. Sometimes I have certain regrets, but overall I am happy with where I am now, because I would have missed out on a great many very unique experiences if I had chosen any differently. Besides, there is nothing stopping me from self-studying, and who knows, perhaps one day I might get the chance to get back to full time university education...I'm not that old just yet

    And I thought you had at least a PhD in physics.
    Ha ha, I probably wouldn't be on Internet forums if I did...I'd be spending my time publishing papers instead

    If there was a listing of the known scientists for this forum then someone like Markus would have to take a back seat despite his passion for science.
    Oh absolutely. Like I said, I am just a layman with an interest.

    How could he argue against qualifications?
    Well, having qualifications does not mean you are always right. If I thought I had spotted a mistake I would still argue the point, even against someone with a qualification. No one is infallible, I have seen very well educated people make really stupid mistakes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    " Shut the cranks down if they can't take an answer" Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to MY answer given." (FIFY) What you mean is you don't like it when someone can't except your descriptions or answers.
    You are misquoting me - what I said was actually this :

    Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to an answer given.
    Is this deliberate or on purpose ? This may seem like a small point, but makes a world of difference if put in context - my statement was a general one, and not geared towards me myself. Never did I imply that what I say is the only right thing, and the yard stick against which everyone is to be measured, in fact I have made it abundantly clear that I am merely a lay person and that I make plenty mistakes as well.

    but just for the fact that the answers are not good enough.
    But that's exactly the problem - they are not good enough for you. You need to at least consider the possibility that this is not because of the answer itself, but because of your own failure to understand it properly. No one is blaming you for this - GR is a difficult topic, and it took me years to get where I am, and I still have a long way to go.

    Not only are they not good enough but most are incomplete.
    Again, that is your personal opinion, not a scientific fact. You need to separate those.

    Really I would like you for once to buck the trend and tell me where you think the standard models have gone wrong. Do you have an opinion or is it all just the status quo forever?
    This may surprise you, but yes, I have plenty of opinions, many of which do not conform to established understanding at all. To give you just one example - I personally believe that the concepts of quantum field theory as we employ them in the Standard Model are fundamentally flawed, and I take what is called the "vacuum catastrophe" as an indication for that, among others. I believe that what is needed are not quantum fields, but a geometric description of the microscopic world, in the spirit of GR - I would like to see elementary particles to be understood as topological defects in space-time, and all their interactions to be described purely geometrically. I believe that the Theory of Everything, if it exists, should be geometric in nature. I believe that the QM wave function has no physical content, but is actually a description of the relation between observer and the system.
    I also believe that Einstein made a fundamental error in choosing the Levi-Civita connection for GR; I think it is necessary to allow torsion as a degree of freedom in space-time in order to better model the world. This will immediately eliminate any type of singularity, replace the Big Bang with a "Big Bounce", and give fermions a spatial extend ( as opposed to it being a point-like particle ). This is not a rejection of GR, but merely a generalisation of it, since this boils down to simply abandonding a certain symmetry in the field equations.

    These are just some among a number of things I personally believe. Now look carefully at what I have written above, and notice the usage of the term believe - all of these are personal opinions of mine, not more and not less. These opinions are based on physical facts and theories, and I can give good arguments for those beliefs, but I do not claim them to be physical reality. I merely state that these are things that should be investigated further, in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues in modern physics.

    The difference between you and me is that I don't reject established things - for example, based on the above, I do not reject QFT per se, because I know that many of its predictions work just fine and are experimentally well verified; what I am saying is that it is likely only an approximation to a higher-level model, much like Newton is only an approximation for GR. Many of the predictions overlap, yet they are fundamentally different models. You on the other hand appear to reject already established physics; you argue against GR based on the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Not a good argument, in my opinion, because that failure to make sense may be down to you instead of the theory itself.

    So, am I a "defender" of the status quo forever ? No, of course not, because that would mean that I am against progress in physics. Far from it ! What I do defend though is the principle that everything new must be based on what we already know to be empirically true - GR is based on Newton, QM is based on classical mechanics, and so on. Rejecting GR because "it doesn't make sense to me", and trying to replace it with Push Gravity - a model which we already know does not work - just doesn't cut it. And neither does the argument that there are many others like you - there is also well over a billion smokers on the planet, which does not make smoking any less detrimental to someone's health. Same in physics - there are thousands upon thousands of anti-relativity people in the world, but that does not make relativity any less right. It's a logical fallacy that's all too easy to fall into. The final arbitror here is always the universe itself - a model and its predictions either stack up against reality, or they don't. Our beliefs and convinctions, or what we think "makes sense", are entirely irrelevant in that regard. To me QFT makes little sense, and stands on shaky ground, yet I have to acknowledge that many of its predictions are in perfect accordance with empirical data, so I can't reject it outright. We have to work with what the universe gives us, not the other way around.

    So as for yourself - if you wish to reject GR because it makes no sense to you, then you are free to do so. Just be sure to understand that this is your personal choice, so the onus is on you to justify why you made that choice. The universe does not care what makes sense to you, it works just the way it does - and surely you don't deny that GR's predictions agree with experiment and observation to a very high degree. The model passes the scientific method at every one of its steps, which is of course the reason why it was accepted in the first place.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; September 17th, 2013 at 04:54 AM.
    Neverfly, babe and KJW like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    " Shut the cranks down if they can't take an answer" Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to MY answer given." (FIFY) What you mean is you don't like it when someone can't except your descriptions or answers.
    You are misquoting me - what I said was actually this :

    Yes, my point exactly. That is pretty much all I am trying to say; it all comes down to how someone reacts to an answer given.
    Is this deliberate or on purpose ? This may seem like a small point, but makes a world of difference if put in context - my statement was a general one, and not geared towards me myself. Never did I imply that what I say is the only right thing, and the yard stick against which everyone is to be measured, in fact I have made it abundantly clear that I am merely a lay person and that I make plenty mistakes as well.

    but just for the fact that the answers are not good enough.
    But that's exactly the problem - they are not good enough for you. You need to at least consider the possibility that this is not because of the answer itself, but because of your own failure to understand it properly. No one is blaming you for this - GR is a difficult topic, and it took me years to get where I am, and I still have a long way to go.

    Not only are they not good enough but most are incomplete.
    Again, that is your personal opinion, not a scientific fact. You need to separate those.

    Really I would like you for once to buck the trend and tell me where you think the standard models have gone wrong. Do you have an opinion or is it all just the status quo forever?
    This may surprise you, but yes, I have plenty of opinions, many of which do not conform to established understanding at all. To give you just one example - I personally believe that the concepts of quantum field theory as we employ them in the Standard Model are fundamentally flawed, and I take what is called the "vacuum catastrophe" as an indication for that, among others. I believe that what is needed are not quantum fields, but a geometric description of the microscopic world, in the spirit of GR - I would like to see elementary particles to be understood as topological defects in space-time, and all their interactions to be described purely geometrically. I believe that the Theory of Everything, if it exists, should be geometric in nature. I believe that the QM wave function has no physical content, but is actually a description of the relation between observer and the system.
    I also believe that Einstein made a fundamental error in choosing the Levi-Civita connection for GR; I think it is necessary to allow torsion as a degree of freedom in space-time in order to better model the world. This will immediately eliminate any type of singularity, replace the Big Bang with a "Big Bounce", and give fermions a spatial extend ( as opposed to it being a point-like particle ).

    These are just some among a number of things I personally believe. Now look carefully at what I have written above, and notice the usage of the term believe - all of these are personal opinions of mine, not more and not less. These opinions are based on physical facts and theories, and I can give good arguments for those beliefs, but I do not claim them to be physical reality. I merely state that these are things that should be investigated further, in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues in modern physics.

    The difference between you and me is that I don't reject established things - for example, based on the above, I do not reject QFT per se, because I know that many of its predictions work just fine and are experimentally well verified; what I am saying is that it is likely only an approximation to a higher-level model, much like Newton is only an approximation for GR. Many of the predictions overlap, yet they are fundamentally different models. You on the other hand appear to reject already established physics; you argue against GR based on the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Not a good argument, in my opinion, because that failure to make sense may be down to you instead of the theory itself.

    So, am I a defender of the status quo forever ? No, of course not, because that would mean that I am against progress in physics. Far from it ! What I do defend though is the principle that everything new must be based on what we already know to be empirically true - GR is based on Newton, QM is based on classical mechanics, and so on. Rejecting GR because "it doesn't make sense to me", and trying to replace it with Push Gravity - a model which we already know does not work - just doesn't cut it. And neither does the argument that there are many others like you - there is also well over a billion smokers on the planet, which does not make smoking any less detrimental to someone's health. Same in physics - there are thousands upon thousands of anti-relativity people in the world, but that does not make relativity any less right.
    THANK YOU! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! MANY MANY MAHALO NUI LOA'S TO YOU......belief is a personal opinion!! YES! Thank you.....There is NOTHING wrong with having a belief. Doesn't mean you are right, by any means, but it is how you perceive something personally.

    In theatre it is a point of directing. Director doesn't say, show me the proof, he says, "I don't believe on this certain line/s. Make me BELIEVE!"

    SO when he says, "I believed you." It is validation that you got your movement, tone, expression, and lines verbatim, and got the point across that needs to be given to the audience.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Ha ha, I probably wouldn't be on Internet forums if I did...I'd be spending my time publishing papers instead
    Nitpick:
    Those with advanced degrees do spend time on forums and publish papers and engage in discussions with like minded people or cranks the same as any member.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    This may surprise you, but yes, I have plenty of opinions, many of which do not conform to established understanding at all. To give you just one example - I personally believe that the concepts of quantum field theory as we employ them in the Standard Model are fundamentally flawed, and I take what is called the "vacuum catastrophe" as an indication for that, among others. I believe that what is needed are not quantum fields, but a geometric description of the microscopic world, in the spirit of GR - I would like to see elementary particles to be understood as topological defects in space-time, and all their interactions to be described purely geometrically. I believe that the Theory of Everything, if it exists, should be geometric in nature. I believe that the QM wave function has no physical content, but is actually a description of the relation between observer and the system.
    Strong agreement, here. I do not see the Standard Model as the "Status Quo" (I'm not saying that you do, Markus Hanke) but rather the strongest model that we currently have.
    I think that given progress and better understanding, a more accurate model will inevitably replace our current Standard Model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I do not reject QFT per se,
    Your error here is both fundamental and embarrassing.

    No man that considers himself to be a man would ever use the expression "per se."

    I almost choked typing it in quotes, even.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    God forbid someone should question the status quo.
    But it isn't really about the status quo. It is about science vs non-science. I have read with interest, contributed to and even started threads about very "non status quo" subjects (e.g. various alternatives to the standard big bang model). Even when these are speculations, they are scientific speculations.

    That generally, but not always, means they are speculations by scientists. If they are speculations made by scientists, that is only because scientists generally have the necessary depth of understanding. However, good speculative ideas can come from well-educated laymen like Markus or even complete amateurs (there was a recent thread on "my theory of the big bang" which I thought was going to be another meaningless idea but, nicely, I was able to provide a link to the science that potentially supported the idea).

    On the other hand, not all speculation by scientists is good science. Someone with a PhD working in science can be a crank and spout meaningless nonsense.

    It is hard to define what makes an idea scientific or not. But if an idea is not supported by any evidence and contradicts current well-established theory, then it is likely not scientific. (And some ideas are just obviously nonsense; see Michael Anteski's posts for example). There is also the attitude of the poster: if they are convinced they are right and nothing will change that; if they think they are the only person to have thought of an "obvious error" in Einstein's work; if they choose evidence that supports them and ignore evidence that contradicts; if they insist scientists are not creative; if the say there is a conspiracy to suppress new ideas; if they demand other people do the experiments and math to prove them right ... then they are probably a crank.

    It is important to realise that well-tested theories are very rarely, possibly never, proven to be completely wrong. The very fact that they are well-tested shows that they are good models. So Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong; relativity just proved Newtonian gravity to be an approximation. It is still useful.

    The claim is often made by cranks that "what we know today may found to be totally wrong" in future. I have studied the history of science and seen at least three major paradigm shifts in my lifetime and yet I cannot think of a single well-tested theory for which that is true. (I used to use phlogiston as an example, but really that never achieved much more than the status of a hypothesis.)
    Last edited by Strange; September 17th, 2013 at 04:37 AM. Reason: added to "diagnostic" list
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If we applied absolute nothing (in a classical sense) to the universe, we would have...

    No Space-time
    No Mass
    No Energy
    And no possibility (in a Nomological sense)
    It depends how you define "nothing" (and I don't think "in a classical sense" answers that). After all, space-time isn't a "thing" it is just a set of measurements. You might say that if there is nothing to measure, then there is no need of space-time. But on the other hand, one can define an empty space-time containing no mass/energy where, therefore, nothing ever happens.
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?

    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Possibly. I have no idea how to categorise this. And I really have no idea what to do with this. Right now, headache. And ive been ordered to bed by the Mrs. This WILL take some time.
    I'm changing my position again. This is neither science, nor pseudo-science. It's just plain old philosophy.

    Your ideas would be equally applicable to the world view of a creationist theologian as it is to the world view of a Big Bang Theory scientist.

    You're basically asking "why is there something instead of nothing?" We can leave out the question of whether there ever was a time that the universe didn't exist. It doesn't honestly matter. It suffices to assume that it *could* not exist, whether or not it ever actually did not exist.

    The real question is "why does the universe exist now?" Did it begin to exist at some point, or has it always existed? (If it began, then whatever caused it to begin is the reason it exists... I guess.) All we know for sure is that it does exist now.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?
    It is just geometry. If I tell you to walk 100 feet north then turn right by 45 degrees, wait 5 minutes and then walk another 10 feet, does that make feet, degrees, minutes and north "things" (made of "stuff") or are they just measurements?

    I suppose one can argue about that (do numbers "exist") but to my mind they are just abstract ways of measuring times/distances between things and events. (Which is why I said that, in an empty universe, one could consider them irrelevant; although they can still be defined for an empty universe.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    No man that considers himself to be a man would ever use the expression "per se."
    Ha ha It's a very common everyday expression where I am, so I suppose we'll have to put that down to cultural differences...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No man that considers himself to be a man would ever use the expression "per se."
    Ha ha It's a very common everyday expression where I am, so I suppose we'll have to put that down to cultural differences...
    It is also a FABULOUS restaurant in New York City!

    I use Per Se frequently....quite a common expression as you said.!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No man that considers himself to be a man would ever use the expression "per se."
    Ha ha It's a very common everyday expression where I am, so I suppose we'll have to put that down to cultural differences...
    Well, maybe in some ways... I wouldn't say it was cultural per se, but it is... Oh Damnit *&%($*!

    I hope your eyeballs bleed.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?
    Are you saying that space-time is "no-thing" ? You can walk left and right, back and forth. You can climb up and fall down. And all that while that clock in your pocket keeps ticking away.
    Seems quite real and quite substantial to me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?
    Are you saying that space-time is "no-thing" ? You can walk left and right, back and forth. You can climb up and fall down. And all that while that clock in your pocket keeps ticking away.
    Seems quite real and quite substantial to me...
    Strange implied it is not a thing but is merely geometry and Kojax implied it is a "thing." Both statements have their own merit though I'm of the crowd that thinks SpaceTime is a "thing."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Yeah, depends what you mean by "thing", I suppose.

    It is not "material" might be closer to what I meant...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yeah, depends what you mean by "thing", I suppose.

    It is not "material" might be closer to what I meant...
    Total unscientific speculation and supposition would follow...
    Quantum Foam, maybe?

    I just think it's likely that there is some form of substance to it- which is why it has the properties it has, such as the perception of time, curvature and the limitation of "c" which simply appears to be a fundamental property of space time for unknown reasons.
    Going further, we could talk entanglement and particles appearing to pop in and out of existence, which a Space Time Substance would account for that appearance...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Sorry if my post (#116) drew some ire. It's just that I did something I don't normally do prior to typing it out. I actually read all the 115 previous posts word for word. An excuse? Maybe.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Sorry if my post (#116) drew some ire. It's just that I did something I don't normally do prior to typing it out. I actually read all the 115 previous posts word for word. An excuse? Maybe.
    No need to apologise - you spoke your mind, and that's sometimes needed. Also we all need to occasionally be reminded that it is all too easy to dismiss everyone who even slightly deviates from the mainstream as a "crank"; so you did perform a valuable service to the community by igniting a discussion about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?
    I think the problem here is taking the notion of spacetime curvature too literally. Personally, I don't think spacetime is curved in a literal sense but in a mathematical sense. It's about the notion of distances between points in spacetime. This doesn't require spacetime to be a "thing" or some sort of "fabric", the distances speak for themselves.
    Strange and Markus Hanke like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    One theory I thought up that would be most logical is that nothingness can create matter, as long as the total product of the energy/mass of the matter is exactly equivalent to zero. This is where antimatter comes in. When you create matter from nothingness, there must be an equal degree of antimatter created to balance out this inequality. The problem is that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter, there is in truth almost no antimatter in the universe relative to the amount of matter in the universe. So I supposed that there must be somewhere this antimatter disappeared. The only logical option to me was the existence of a parallel universe containing almost completely antimatter.

    I concluded this from wondering where the energy used to create antimatter in the LHC goes. In my hypothesis the "positive" energy content put into the creation of antimatter is sent into this parallel universe where there is another LHC practicing the same experiment, and that this causes an annihilation on either side, destroying both the matter and antimatter produced in this experiment.

    My hypothesis is open to criticism and I appreciate your feedback.

    P.S. My signature is in part about this

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If space-time is not a "thing" in any sense, then how can it curve?
    It is just geometry. If I tell you to walk 100 feet north then turn right by 45 degrees, wait 5 minutes and then walk another 10 feet, does that make feet, degrees, minutes and north "things" (made of "stuff") or are they just measurements?

    I suppose one can argue about that (do numbers "exist") but to my mind they are just abstract ways of measuring times/distances between things and events. (Which is why I said that, in an empty universe, one could consider them irrelevant; although they can still be defined for an empty universe.)
    People, first of all, I would like to say thank you. It seems like my thread has finally turned into a place we can work in. Am I a crank? I have no idea, because I have been wrong plenty of times before. I can only say that I think I have too much appreciation for the amount of effort that has gone into our current understanding of the sciences and I don't like messing with that.
    Strange. I quoted you. The reason why is the conversation after that post. No-one seems quite sure how to "Think" of Space-time. When I say "Think" I mean in the sense of having an absolute end argument that our brains are happy with. Something solid that we can rely on.
    Some might. And then, some might not.

    It was mentioned earlier that what I am dealing with is philosophy. And, as I write this, this is true. Later, it might turn into something different. But for the moment I would like to continue on with the idea that in order to see the Universe with clear logic, where things are definite and not hazy, we must first understand what "Nothing" ...in the absolute sense, means to us. If we cannot understand the most basic paradox in our minds- That place in between "Yes"and "No" then we have no right to look at a Universe that says... well..."Maybe"

    And I am no God. My stance is that I don't know. I am an agnostic. I don't apologize for that. I would prefer not to see ANY religious conversation until the main points are made. My aim here is to increase our knowledge of science. What happens later, is not my problem. That's a personal thing. The Universe is big enough for everyone.

    As I mentioned before. I don't have much time at the moment. But I am very much enjoying that you lot are talking about this.

    So, Ill leave this with you. What is the relationship between time and possibility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon Keogh View Post
    One theory I thought up that would be most logical is that nothingness can create matter, as long as the total product of the energy/mass of the matter is exactly equivalent to zero. This is where antimatter comes in. When you create matter from nothingness, there must be an equal degree of antimatter created to balance out this inequality.
    The problem with this is that both matter and anti-matter have positive amounts of mass (and therefore energy). If you combine one atom of hydrogen and one atom of anti-hydrogen, you don't end up with nothing. You end up with the energy equivalent of the mass of the two atoms.

    However, there are other conservation laws that mean that as the early universe cooled and matter could form from the energy that was present, it should have created an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, as you say.

    So...

    The problem is that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter, there is in truth almost no antimatter in the universe relative to the amount of matter in the universe.
    This is a real problem. There is a small asymmetry between the behaviour of antimatter and matter, but not enough to explain what we see.

    So I supposed that there must be somewhere this antimatter disappeared. The only logical option to me was the existence of a parallel universe containing almost completely antimatter.
    That is not very helpful without a theory of how antimatter could be transferred to a parallel universe. And an explanation of why, if antimatter can do that then matter can't.

    I concluded this from wondering where the energy used to create antimatter in the LHC goes.
    I'm not quite sure what this is referring to. But any antimatter created is matched by an equal quantity of matter (and an equivalent amount of energy was used to create them both).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Why should the whole of the Universe have started from nothing ?
    Why must it be so that it started at all ?

    Our brains seem to want to attach a beginning and and end to everything, i don' know why,
    maybe because that brain starts and ends itself, a human life starting and ending.

    We seem to want to order everything around us with beginnings and ends.

    But it makes no sense to me, i personnally like the idea of the dragon eating it's own tail :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros


    N
    o beginning, no end, just cycles going on and on that never started and will never end.

    Just as i believe that the smallest particle does not really exist, there's always something smaller to be found in 'the smallest' at some point in the future,
    when technology allows us to measure it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Why should the whole of the Universe have started from nothing ?
    Why must it be so that it started at all ?

    Our brains seem to want to attach a beginning and and end to everything, i don' know why,
    maybe because that brain starts and ends itself, a human life starting and ending.

    We seem to want to order everything around us with beginnings and ends.

    But it makes no sense to me, i personnally like the idea of the dragon eating it's own tail :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros


    N
    o beginning, no end, just cycles going on and on that never started and will never end.

    Just as i believe that the smallest particle does not really exist, there's always something smaller to be found in 'the smallest' at some point in the future,
    when technology allows us to measure it.
    Bit rough, but the points i mentioned before remain the same. We are cause and effect creatures.
    Why we do this is the way we do is also of interest...and will be looked at.

    And Noa, there is always something smaller to find...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Why should the whole of the Universe have started from nothing ?
    Why must it be so that it started at all ?
    Absolutely no reason. By which I mean two things: if it started from nothing, there doesn't have to be a reason; and we have no reason to think it started from nothing.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    More to the point... Regarding my question about time and possibility... What exactly is the distinction between the two? In our minds is there a real distinction between the two?
    I cant make that connection for you guys. That, I have to leave to you.

    It's difficult for me to do this, as it is to explain a lot of this. But in order to continue, I have to let you lot digest that. Otherwise the argument is defeated, and we may as well all stop here.

    And NO. The end definition for me does not mean I can pull rabbits out of my hat. What it does is give us a tiny advantage in going forward. I hope you guys do this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    More to the point... Regarding my question about time and possibility... What exactly is the distinction between the two? In our minds is there a real distinction between the two?
    What do you mean by the word "possibility"?

    I can't see any way in which it can be synonym for time.

    It's difficult for me to do this, as it is to explain a lot of this.
    As you seem unable to explain any of your ideas, I'm not sure why you started this thread.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Please remember here that this is all hypothetical. I am merely trying to highlight points that might seem obvious a first glance...but might not be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    What do you mean by the word "possibility"?
    Not entirely sure but I'm starting to wonder when the " Nothing has potential for something" argument will manifest itself. Potential being a byproduct of nothing for some people. A thing I guess.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @Strange. Mostly because it does not come up so often... Here's something to get you started. (I'm sorry if i am incorrect)
    Possibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Or we can ask ourselves..."If there is no possibility of time existing, then how can it come into existence)
    A blunt point I know, but worth mulling over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @Zinjanthroops: Driving test first for everyone mate. Can't be any other way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    @Zinjanthroops: Driving test first for everyone mate. Can't be any other way.
    You're scaring me. Are we going to get to the part where 'nothing' is an impossibility? A thing I guess.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    And please don't forget. We are talking currently about PERCEPTION in the mind. For the moment. Don't forget that. Underlined, capitalized, and bolded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    @Zinjanthropos: No worries mate. It's very startlingly simple at the end of the day. Listen to the ideas, and you will be good. At least I hope so. Depends on my idea and if people agree with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    @Zinjanthroops: Driving test first for everyone mate. Can't be any other way.
    You're scaring me. Are we going to get to the part where 'nothing' is an impossibility? A thing I guess.
    I wouldn't hold your breathe, he's just chain yanking...
    I'm also hoping he doesn't say that the universe is what 'nothing' looks like. Another thing I guess.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Depends on my idea and if people agree with it.
    As far as I can tell, unless I have missed something, you haven't told us what your idea is yet.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Sorry if my post (#116) drew some ire. It's just that I did something I don't normally do prior to typing it out. I actually read all the 115 previous posts word for word. An excuse? Maybe.
    Nothing wrong with saying what is on your mind......*S*...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post

    So, Ill leave this with you. What is the relationship between time and possibility?
    Scientifically? Entropy is the only truly consistent measure of time. Any physical event/process that has no entropy is reversible, meaning that if you hit "rewind" and watched the event in reverse, it would still make sense. However events that involve entropy don't make sense when you hit "rewind". For example, if you shatter a glass vase. If you watch that event in reverse it would be quite amazing to see the glass shards spontaneously coming together to make a vase.


    In Quantum Mechanics, a "wave function" does not assume a definite value until it "collapses". Until the moment of wave function collapse, it's still undefined. But after the moment of wave function collapse, it has made its choice and it must stick with it. A "possibility" as you call it, has become a definite reality.

    One could say that "time" is simply the collapsing of wave functions.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Depends on my idea and if people agree with it.
    As far as I can tell, unless I have missed something, you haven't told us what your idea is yet.
    Since the idea is not forthcoming would I be correct to assume an entire thread was derived from nothing?
    Strange, Markus Hanke and babe like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I guess he was playing a silly game of seeing how long he could string the thread out for. Maybe when he was called on just yanking our chains he got bored...
    Oh I don't know about that. Could be but I think it is entirely possible the OPer thought he/she had an original idea but somewhere in the midst of all those posts he read something that would kill it or reveal plagiarism. Perhaps he is trying to work around that problem right now and we may or may not hear from him/her again.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    As an addendum to my earlier post #143 - specifically in relation to my belief that the universe is ultimately geometric in nature - I just came across this little gem from the SUSY 2013 conference :

    SUSY 2013 Conference: Video Archive

    and also by way of a very general introduction :

    Amplituhedron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...-amplituhedron

    Most fascinating; this is pretty much exactly along the lines of what I expected will turn up as a generalisation of QFT, based on various thoughts and ideas I have had for some time. So maybe my belief in geometry as the ultimate building block of the universe stands on more solid ground as even I myself thought...much work yet to be done, and who knows, maybe it leads nowhere, but nonetheless there are exciting times ahead, people
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Markus... no more delay...get your degree asap. The world would be better place.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Markus... no more delay...get your degree asap. The world would be better place.
    Ha, ha...I wish I could
    At this stage of my life it's all about the kids and the family though...hard enough to make ends meet as it is. The back-to-university project will need to be on hold for a few more years, I'm afraid. At least until the kids are able to stand on their own feet. But then again, maybe that is not a bad thing - the self-study I am doing should give me a good grounding to go back and do a degree course, because I'll know exactly what to expect, and how all the small pieces of physics fit together into a bigger picture. Also, it'll be a good laugh - when all the others struggle with Maxwell's equations in their "usual" form, filling pages upon pages with high school algebra, I'll have it done in a few lines with tensors and differential forms. Happy days
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Markus....Surely there must be programs in the country you live that would sponsor you through school and look after your family at the same time. If there isn't then there should be.
    John Galt likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Markus....Surely there must be programs in the country you live that would sponsor you through school and look after your family at the same time. If there isn't then there should be.
    There isn't, at least no viable one. I'm the sole income earner in a family of six, and work two jobs to make ends meet. There is no practical way for me to go back to education at this stage. But like I said, once the kids stand on their own feet, it might be a different story
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There isn't, at least no viable one. I'm the sole income earner in a family of six, and work two jobs to make ends meet. There is no practical way for me to go back to education at this stage. But like I said, once the kids stand on their own feet, it might be a different story
    They might even sponsor you!

    I've just noticed you have changed your location; the old one sounded much more exotic (especially as yesterday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I've just noticed you have changed your location
    Not sure what you mean ? I have had "Calabi-Yau Manifold" on for at least a year now...I can't even remember what I had before !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Markus....Surely there must be programs in the country you live that would sponsor you through school and look after your family at the same time. If there isn't then there should be.
    There isn't, at least no viable one. I'm the sole income earner in a family of six, and work two jobs to make ends meet. There is no practical way for me to go back to education at this stage. But like I said, once the kids stand on their own feet, it might be a different story
    Not even a university willing to help you out? Just send a few of the ones you like a paper and see what they say. Make sure they know your situation.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Oh, maybe it wasn't you.
    Last edited by Strange; September 20th, 2013 at 11:00 AM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Not even a university willing to help you out? Just send a few of the ones you like a paper and see what they say. Make sure they know your situation.
    I don't really have any papers to send; in any case, the best case scenario here would be a scholarship, i.e. having the tuition fees paid. That still doesn't solve the problem of how to get the kids through their colleges, while still keeping the bills paid and food on the table. There simply is no such support available, at least not in the country where I am.

    But to be honest, personally I wouldn't really feel ready for a university degree in theoretical physics yet anyway. Better to spend a few more years self-studying at my own pace, and in my specific areas of interest; I am only in my mid-30s, so no rush. I'm a believer in that things happen when it is time for them to happen - pointless to take risks and put the family's livelihood at jeopardy !

    But not to worry, one day I will definitely do it. I have other dreams also - I finally want to get my PPL done ( never had the cash for it, so only did simulator hours ), and I want to walk ( yes : walk ! ) across America. Life is too beautiful to squander it...have to go the whole way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Life is too beautiful to squander it...have to go the whole way
    You know Markus, the same could be said for a mind. What will it tell you when you finish your walk across America? I can't believe there isn't something available in the USA to aid people in your predicament. Personally if I was a taxpayer, assisting people such as yourself would be something I'd expect my government to do with the money. I would have no problem whatsoever with it, a no-brainer (no pun intended). Bad enough that minds are suppressed for the wrong reasons, the country won't benefit while you're on the sidelines.

    *This was my Knute Rockne 'Win one for the Gipper' speech.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I can't believe there isn't something available in the USA to aid people in your predicament.
    I am not in the USA, and since I am using my real name I prefer not to reveal exactly where I am. I can tell you though that here in my country no suitable supports for people in my situation are available, nor can I immediately think of any place where that would actually be the case. Our government has a hard time to keep things together as it is - we used to drive on the left of the road, now we drive on what is left of the road
    The reality of life is that I have to look after my family first before I can worry about my academic pursuits; but like I said, a few years down the line things might be easier, and the rat race mightn't be as demanding. I'm still young-ish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I can't believe there isn't something available in the USA to aid people in your predicament.
    I am not in the USA, and since I am using my real name I prefer not to reveal exactly where I am. I can tell you though that here in my country no suitable supports for people in my situation are available, nor can I immediately think of any place where that would actually be the case. Our government has a hard time to keep things together as it is - we used to drive on the left of the road, now we drive on what is left of the road
    The reality of life is that I have to look after my family first before I can worry about my academic persuits; but like I said, a few years down the line things might be easier, and the rat race mightn't be as demanding. I'm still young-ish
    Sorry about the error in country. Good luck.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    ...I can't even remember what I had before !

    If can supply that information if you like.

    Don't worry, I'm not stalking you. I just remember the unusual location since it was a place I once wrote an article about. I won't mention the place just in case you were actually from there and not just joking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Not even a university willing to help you out? Just send a few of the ones you like a paper and see what they say. Make sure they know your situation.
    I don't really have any papers to send; in any case, the best case scenario here would be a scholarship, i.e. having the tuition fees paid. That still doesn't solve the problem of how to get the kids through their colleges, while still keeping the bills paid and food on the table. There simply is no such support available, at least not in the country where I am.

    But to be honest, personally I wouldn't really feel ready for a university degree in theoretical physics yet anyway. Better to spend a few more years self-studying at my own pace, and in my specific areas of interest; I am only in my mid-30s, so no rush. I'm a believer in that things happen when it is time for them to happen - pointless to take risks and put the family's livelihood at jeopardy !

    But not to worry, one day I will definitely do it. I have other dreams also - I finally want to get my PPL done ( never had the cash for it, so only did simulator hours ), and I want to walk ( yes : walk ! ) across America. Life is too beautiful to squander it...have to go the whole way
    Fulfill your dreams. You are a smart and delightful man, and you are correct, that you only live once. *S*
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Don't worry, I'm not stalking you. I just remember the unusual location since it was a place I once wrote an article about. I won't mention the place just in case you were actually from there and not just joking.
    I would not have put my real location, so please do remind me - what did I have before ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,082
    It was "Edinburgh of the Seven Seas, Tristan da Cunha" (or some variation of). As you no doubt know, it's one of the remotest island locations on Earth, so it caught my attention and stuck in my memory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    It was "Edinburgh of the Seven Seas, Tristan da Cunha" (or some variation of). As you no doubt know, it's one of the remotest island locations on Earth, so it caught my attention and stuck in my memory.
    Ah yes, I remember now A very fascinating place indeed...one of those locations which I'd like to visit before I'm too old...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    45
    Time to clear some stuff up I guess. Some people seem to be confused about what my idea actually is. I’m not in any way yanking your chains, as I genuinely think I have a point here. Right now in my life, things are challenging. I have my first child to look after, lots of work, and many other problems. Perhaps some of this is reflected by confusion in my posts.
    To be clear about my idea, and why I’m posting it here:
    Firstly, It is because this is a scientific forum. People here think in a certain manner. Through an understanding of methodology and process. Philosophy is useful sometimes when we have to visualize ideas. The Universe is viewed scientifically through a framework of rigidity and rules.
    We work within this framework to achieve results. The results can be proved or disproved. This we do in order to come up with a theory of the Universe. In other words we don’t involve ourselves in the outcome too often. (quantum, yes)
    I’m writing this here, not because I believe this view is incorrect, but because I believe it can be augmented by involving ourselves in it. Specifically, by how an aspect of our thought process works. I believe I have found a very useful tool that will enable us to see things in a different context, that will perhaps shed some light on why things are the way they are.
    Believe me; I never wanted to get involved in philosophical thinking on this scale. For me, it is holding me back and I think it’s a pain in the ass at this stage. But I realised I had to do it this way if I wanted to talk to you about my ideas. I would much prefer to get on with things rather than waffle on about philosophy. But I have to. What makes sense to me might not make sense to others. After all, the whole argument is based on perception.
    Now, on to the idea. (revise –How to approach the idea)
    Now you can compare both – logical and scientific thinking. Why not. But the point is – when I say philosophical – I mean it. When I say what does “Nothing” mean to our minds, I mean exactly that. Not from a scientific viewpoint. Only philosophical. How do we define it in our heads? When I say “possibility” I mean - what does it mean to us from our innate understanding of it?
    There is a big difference between scientific description and philosophical distinction. Please appreciate this. I can’t progress with this thread if you guys limit yourselves to a scientific response. It has to be both. It does no-one any good. For example, I got a reply saying:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post

    So, Ill leave this with you. What is the relationship between time and possibility?
    Scientifically? Entropy is the only truly consistent measure of time. Any physical event/process that has no entropy is reversible, meaning that if you hit "rewind" and watched the event in reverse, it would still make sense. However events that involve entropy don't make sense when you hit "rewind". For example, if you shatter a glass vase. If you watch that event in reverse it would be quite amazing to see the glass shards spontaneously coming together to make a vase.


    In Quantum Mechanics, a "wave function" does not assume a definite value until it "collapses". Until the moment of wave function collapse, it's still undefined. But after the moment of wave function collapse, it has made its choice and it must stick with it. A "possibility" as you call it, has become a definite reality.

    One could say that "time" is simply the collapsing of wave functions.
    And he is absolutely right. (Ok…close enough) But in a scientific context.
    I wasn’t asking for this reply. As I said before – This is an analysis of how we think. Remember this.
    I can’t play with you, if you won’t play with me.
    Now, finally, onto the idea:
    I will explain how “Nothing “ by its very nature “Nothings” itself out of existence. Then I will explain how possibility is really time according to our perception of it. And why it has to semi-exist within this framework., and how it provides improbability to the formation of the universe. I will then explain how “Possibility” has to create… not involving time, but rather everything that has ever existed, every possible universe or choice at all times - is bundled into a non-moment in possibility. The energy provided by this will push formation of everything we know.
    But it is all contained within a thought experiment. .. It does not give us proof of the place we live in. But maybe it lets us see things with more clarity. It is a matter of perception. And now, finally the little guy is asleep, and im going to bed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Time to clear some stuff up I guess.
    Skipping lots of very unclear and apparently irrelevant waffle. (<slap> focus, man, focus! <slap>)

    Now, finally, onto the idea:
    At last!

    I will explain how “Nothing “ by its very nature “Nothings” itself out of existence. Then I will explain how possibility is really time according to our perception of it. And why it has to semi-exist within this framework., and how it provides improbability to the formation of the universe. I will then explain how “Possibility” has to create… not involving time, but rather everything that has ever existed, every possible universe or choice at all times - is bundled into a non-moment in possibility.
    O.... K.... And when will you explain all this?

    We have had 200 posts over more than 1 month, and you still haven't explained your idea!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,438
    Yes, Marbor22, it is time to clear up stuff.

    I had a newborn and a 22 month old and my husband was out of town for three days a week for the first 2 months after my son's birth, and I still managed, to work and reply to questions and take care of my kids, mow 1 1/4 acres, do laundry cook, etc.

    I understand that it is difficult, but I do wish to question WHY you would BOTHER to come on a Forum, and pose a question and then spend a month not answering it.

    If you are time constrained, then withdraw the question and ask to have the thread removed.

    No offense is intended. I just don't understand why!
    Markus Hanke and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    Now, finally, onto the idea:
    Ah, finally...
    Quote Originally Posted by marbor22 View Post
    I will explain
    And then you don't say anything. You explain nothing. Over a couple hundred replies over three pages and you've not explained a thing, yet.

    Zinjanthropos really nailed it, right here:
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    FFS....get on with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    I'm interested in what you have to say marbor22, and I promise to be gentle. I am not interested in the unfathomable, however... since pondering it is pure conjecture. Existence is. Was existence ever not? It's impossible to know. What we do know is that it is. So, where do we go from here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    The origin of mathmatics has relevence to this topic of something from nothing. It starts from nothing, so there is the nothing. Then it developes by defining each point along its path. Now the direction comes into question as to whether it is a predefined path as increasing the quantity of existance, or whether it has numbers of choices and variances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Re: How do we decide who gets to be an American?
    By Bad Robot in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2013, 06:12 PM
  2. Help me decide what class I should take?
    By elegance in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 7th, 2010, 07:51 AM
  3. IQ tests cannot decide upon ones intelligence
    By blue_space87 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 10th, 2008, 08:11 AM
  4. You decide
    By Quantime in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 06:33 PM
  5. You decide
    By Quantime in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •