FTL travel here we come!

[Overmind One]

lol sure man. You have no idea of the knowledge in math and physics.

And you base this on what...the same physics that tells you everything else? Nothing but a snide, condescending remark. The fact is that you do not know any more about physics than I do or than anyone does. You know what you have been TOLD to know. You know the dogma, nothing more.

You're talking from a serious level of ignorance. You even admit you don't want/need to learn the math and science.

Why would I? Look where the existing math and physics have gotten us? I took freshman level courses and saw immediately that it was going nowhere I wanted to be. I have a very high level of competence in computers and programming. Things in information technology, unlike physics is very constant and my field has added more to science and technology than all of the others combined. You are still a student being programmed in your indoctrination center and are not working in the field telling me that I am ignorant when I have been doing the real world work in my field for more than two decades and am currently being paid very well to do? Laughable. By the time you graduate and are out looking for work, you will have your nose so far up in the air you will be able to see behind you. Lets tone down the condescension, shall we?

Yet you continue to deride it from your level of ignorance. You changed your stance, from there are no constants in physics to there are no physical constants. That is just a ridiculous claim, you want something to touch and feel? That serves no purpose in science, something to touch and feel and it makes no sense to connect it to physics cause that's something humans do, touch and feel. It's so silly! I think you have this really silly notion that the only physics that qualify as knowledge are ones that have practical applications. Everything started at the theoretical stage. Again, helps if you freaking learn the science instead of berating things you don't even bother to know. Lemme bash on Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, cause it's so antiquated and is useless and bad grammar blah blah, even though I've never read the book. So silly!

YES, that is what I am saying (bolded). Its irrelevant unless it has practical applications or accurately describes the physical universe it purports to do. I play PC games where all things are possible. What use is my skill in a game when applied to the real universe?

Definition of PHYSICS

1
: a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions

2
a : the physical processes and phenomena of a particular system
b : the physical properties and composition of something


Modern physics does NONE of those things. Mathematical models and mathematical equations are not in the physical universe, nor can it describe the physical universe. THAT is my argument here. There will be a way to do it accurately, but modern physics is not going to get us there if it remains mired in dogma and resistance from arrogant figureheads who refuse to entertain alternatives.

It is you who are ignorant. You do not even question what you are being taught. Not one little bit. Dare do that and you are "ignorant". Einstein was a mediocre student, and he did not create his paradigm shift in physics by pouring over a bunch of books fed to him to memorize like you are doing. He thought different than Newton and those who came before him, and now the "modern" physics field consists of followers of the Einstein religion. You people are using constants, approximations and theories to guide you and they are no more than phantoms which have been validated in large numbers by students accepting them. That does not make them any more real or relevant than believing in religion or ghosts.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Yeah, it's silly to think of something as physical constants, although I think he was going for the all inclusive all.

Ahh, here is the difference (from my POV at least), some things are constant to an extent (your side), but at the same time, due to outside influences (his side) they never really are *except in a perfectly controlled model*

Yeah, I don't really care about the model, but in the end, some sort of constraining factor will arise because of the order and relations. If you impose the same conditions on all 10 and same effects (the sound wave and molecule disruption being the same for all of them), then it will probably be at the same time.

(
You are imposing unrealistic expectations and or exceptions here dude. The very essence of OM's argument against constants (if I am reading him right) is that in nature, nothing is constant, nothing is identical. It may react *mostly* the same (and mostly could be on the degree of 99.9995%). We make "best fit theories", but we should always remember that they ARE just theories.

But if you're talking about exact measurement in relation to chosen apparatus and making it subject to human observation, then there's gonna be error in measurement due to human error and apparatus error. If you're talking about infinite degree of precision, that doesn't make sense and is impossible to even attempt to do so. I don't see how that relates to his constants argument, don't even see an argument for that matter.

See above

The magic thing is another matter, I was using it in the sense of normal language not DnD, WoW, fantasy books that describe a magic system in full. This is sorta more uh literary or philosophical matter.

Philosophical or spiritual, I wasn't talking "fantasy books either" (YAY, look more like a kook GF....... )

If you prefer, use pure coincidence instead. I think you're thinking of magic with all the formalized structure. There was this review of a Sanderson book I read a while back. He basically said about the way Sanderson does magic: when you give give structure and general framework to a magic system, you're making it a science with respect to the world you create. It's not really magic, according to him. Eh, that's a minor point in how we differentiate in how we view the word magic I guess. I'm on that guy's side in a way. Think pure coincidence instead.

It's not "magic" in the way the majority of the world see's it, thats all. To "joe public", "Magic" is the illusions of Penn and Teller, Chris Angel and so on. To some of the Religious, "magic" is the tool of the Devil. To others however, "magic" is just as much a valid "way to understand the universe" as physics. Look at one of the most widely known laws of "magic", the law of "Sympathy"
To "Joe Average", this is the idea working behind things like "voodoo dolls", and stabbing them will hurt the "real version" of the person. But if you look at the *core* of the concept with a modern eye, it's more akin to making scale models of planes and subjecting them to "equivalent forces" to see how they will react in full scale!
Nothing "hinky", nor bizarre, nor even "magical", just an old, old concept than can be just as valid today.

 

[mzzz]

Eh just read it as pure coincidence instead of magic then.

You're also imposing unrealistic exceptions and expectations. Quantum theory essentially states you can't know things down to the quantum states, you end up with a binary situation, what the whole uncertainty principle's about.

You can't have order and relations without some kind of restrictive things, entities, whatever you want to call them, that's mostly what physics takes as constants. Sure their specific current model and theories maybe wrong or not general enough or not comprehensive enough, that's entailed in the definition of scientific theory, but whatever system you want to abide by, it's really the order and relationship between things that give rise to the constants, everything else is just the way we model things with our current logic, tech, etc.

 

[Overmind One]

Ahh, here is the difference (from my POV at least), some things are constant to an extent (your side), but at the same time, due to outside influences (his side) they never really are *except in a perfectly controlled model*

And physics models work PERFECTLY in the digital world. They look nice displayed on multi-million-dollar systems paid for by the taxpayers too. . I have seen them.

You are imposing unrealistic expectations and or exceptions here dude. The very essence of OM's argument against constants (if I am reading him right) is that in nature, nothing is constant, nothing is identical. It may react *mostly* the same (and mostly could be on the degree of 99.9995%). We make "best fit theories", but we should always remember that they ARE just theories.

You are reading me exactly right.

Philosophical or spiritual, I wasn't talking "fantasy books either" (YAY, look more like a kook GF....... )

Physics and magic (in the real world practice of it) work much the same. I can hear the groans now. Yes, people practice magic in the real world. No, they are not trying to turn people into animals or splitting Darrin into two separate people. . I know a little bit about Wicca, but not a lot. Much of it crosses into nutrition and biochemistry, as quiet as its kept.

It's not "magic" in the way the majority of the world see's it, thats all. To "joe public", "Magic" is the illusions of Penn and Teller, Chris Angel and so on. To some of the Religious, "magic" is the tool of the Devil. To others however, "magic" is just as much a valid "way to understand the universe" as physics. Look at one of the most widely known laws of "magic", the law of "Sympathy"
To "Joe Average", this is the idea working behind things like "voodoo dolls", and stabbing them will hurt the "real version" of the person. But if you look at the *core* of the concept with a modern eye, it's more akin to making scale models of planes and subjecting them to "equivalent forces" to see how they will react in full scale!
Nothing "hinky", nor bizarre, nor even "magical", just an old, old concept than can be just as valid today.

I guess Im reading you right as well. I am not picking on any of the other sciences except physics. Its the only major scientific discipline which is snagged on itself.

 

[Bluce Ree]

[...] Mathematical models and mathematical equations are not in the physical universe, [...]

Johnny and Bobby both take trains that leave at 5pm at starting points exactly 100 miles apart from each other. Johnny's train heads north towards Bobby's train at 150mph while Bobby's train heads south at 120mph. Johnny and Bobby are both sitting in the last car and there are 25 cars exactly 60 feet long each. About 3/4 of the way, Johnny decides to get up and walk to the front of the train at exactly 1 mile per hour. Bobby, being a big fat ass, keeps his butt firmly planted in the last seat of the last car. Assuming both cars pass each other on the way, at what time will Johnny and Bobby be right next to each other and in which car will Johnny be at that time?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Johnny and Bobby both take trains that leave at 5pm at starting points exactly 100 miles apart from each other. Johnny's train heads north towards Bobby's train at 150mph while Bobby's train heads south at 120mph. Johnny and Bobby are both sitting in the last car and there are 25 cars exactly 60 feet long each. About 3/4 of the way, Johnny decides to get up and walk to the front of the train at exactly 1 mile per hour. Bobby, being a big fat ass, keeps his butt firmly planted in the last seat of the last car. Assuming both cars pass each other on the way, at what time will Johnny and Bobby be right next to each other and in which car will Johnny be at that time?

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!
No one walks at "exactly 1MPH"
But I get your point, and I don't miss such math questions at all, *especially* when I got posed them in my freaking ENGLISH classes

 

[Joelist]

Johnny and Bobby both take trains that leave at 5pm at starting points exactly 100 miles apart from each other. Johnny's train heads north towards Bobby's train at 150mph while Bobby's train heads south at 120mph. Johnny and Bobby are both sitting in the last car and there are 25 cars exactly 60 feet long each. About 3/4 of the way, Johnny decides to get up and walk to the front of the train at exactly 1 mile per hour. Bobby, being a big fat ass, keeps his butt firmly planted in the last seat of the last car. Assuming both cars pass each other on the way, at what time will Johnny and Bobby be right next to each other and in which car will Johnny be at that time?

At a SWAG, they should pass each other at approximately 5:22:24. There is room for error in that estimate. Also johnny walking doesn't matter because by the time his faster train gets to 3/4 of the distance the trains have already passed.....:psycho:

 

[Gatefan1976]

Eh just read it as pure coincidence instead of magic then.

A far easier "pill" to swallow

You're also imposing unrealistic exceptions and expectations. Quantum theory essentially states you can't know things down to the quantum states, you end up with a binary situation, what the whole uncertainty principle's about.

No, I'm not, QT states that you cannot quantify anything in absolute terms, I would call this "Kaos Theory" (the spelling to signify it is NOT chaos theory as used in modern scientific parlance, not the the skylander character ), but a far older idea.

You can't have order and relations without some kind of restrictive things, entities, whatever you want to call them, that's mostly what physics takes as constants.

Hang on, are you suggesting that modern physics cannot exist without "god/s"?
Why oh why did secular religion hate science!!!

Sure their specific current model and theories maybe wrong or not general enough or not comprehensive enough, that's entailed in the definition of scientific theory, but whatever system you want to abide by, it's really the order and relationship between things that give rise to the constants, everything else is just the way we model things with our current logic, tech, etc.

For sure, I don't, and again, if I am channelling OM correctly again, neither does he. what he, and I object to is the notion of absolutes. nothing is absolute in this universe, there are "likey", "very unlikely", and "darn near unavoidable" " events, but no absolutes. Death you say? what about "conciousness transfer"? We can't do it now, we may never do it, but it is an idea.
As to "systems"
There is nothing wrong with systems, nothing at all *Until such a point where the preservation of the system is more important than the understanding of the reason the system exists at all*
Ask OM about the Republicans and when it was more important for him to not blindly support them, or when a "faithful person" loses thier "faith", or even when they re-discover it.
The system truly does not matter, it is the desired result that matters.

 

[Overmind One]

A far easier "pill" to swallow


No, I'm not, QT states that you cannot quantify anything in absolute terms, I would call this "Kaos Theory" (the spelling to signify it is NOT chaos theory as used in modern scientific parlance, not the the skylander character ), but a far older idea.

Even "clones" are not identical. How can this be? In some physics circles, elementary particles such as "protons" and "electrons" are considered CLASSES of particles, based in their behaviors and how they behave in an orbital system of particles. Thus, a "proton" might have a different mass in one system than it does in another. It depends on the size of the system and how much relative matter you want to include. We do not see identical systems anywhere in the observable universe. But we see "similar" ones. That is good enough to study the relationships between heavy matter objects and energetic sources of energy like stars. Perhaps this relationship could reveal more about the interactions between the two. Perhaps open a new path to the understanding of gravitation and magnetism. Who knows? But "modern" physics stops us at "WHAT? Of course protons have a constant mass. You are an ignorant fool if you believe otherwise. You have failed your exam. Please go back to the books until you get it right."

Hang on, are you suggesting that modern physics cannot exist without "god/s"?
Why oh why did secular religion hate science!!!

For sure, I don't, and again, if I am channelling OM correctly again, neither does he. what he, and I object to is the notion of absolutes. nothing is absolute in this universe, there are "likey", "very unlikely", and "darn near unavoidable" " events, but no absolutes. Death you say? what about "conciousness transfer"? We can't do it now, we may never do it, but it is an idea.
As to "systems"

Channels are synced.

There is nothing wrong with systems, nothing at all *Until such a point where the preservation of the system is more important than the understanding of the reason the system exists at all*

Ask OM about the Republicans and when it was more important for him to not blindly support them, or when a "faithful person" loses thier "faith", or even when they re-discover it.
The system truly does not matter, it is the desired result that matters.

Beautifully stated.

 

[Gatefan1976]

You missed your calling OM, you should be a progressive spiritualist/philosopher!!!

 

[Overmind One]

You missed your calling OM, you should be a progressive spiritualist/philosopher!!!

I thought I was already there! Its closer to my core than IT, but being such a person makes me a better problem solver than my much younger competition. At least Id like to think so. :emmersed: Too many newly graduated IT guys (not gals so much) get an attitude of "holier than thou" and make condescending remarks within earshot...or directly to the "peon" end users. They intimidate because they think they can, and never think about whether they SHOULD or not. Most people do not think past their interests. They focus on one aspect of something and never see how it is connected to everything else. Perhaps that wisdom comes with age? Dont know. As long as I can SEE, I can find the right path. Just a personal conviction.

 

[Overmind One]

Johnny and Bobby both take trains that leave at 5pm at starting points exactly 100 miles apart from each other. Johnny's train heads north towards Bobby's train at 150mph while Bobby's train heads south at 120mph. Johnny and Bobby are both sitting in the last car and there are 25 cars exactly 60 feet long each. About 3/4 of the way, Johnny decides to get up and walk to the front of the train at exactly 1 mile per hour. Bobby, being a big fat ass, keeps his butt firmly planted in the last seat of the last car. Assuming both cars pass each other on the way, at what time will Johnny and Bobby be right next to each other and in which car will Johnny be at that time?

You created a model and plugged "real" variables into it when such a scenario is highly unlikely to ever arise. And if it did, it could not be used as a template for all other similar scenarios with any real precision. Why cant physics use the ACTUAL scenarios and then observe what is actually going on? They are missing a huge opportunity. The power exists to record interactions of matter and energy for long periods of time to collect raw data. Much data is already collected. But when that data does not behave in the "predicted" fashion, it is rejected as an anomaly or a mistake, OR new particles are invented (with somebody's name slapped on it now) to explain the discrepancy. The problem lies in how we are pursuing knowledge in physics, not physics itself.

 

[Bluce Ree]

You created a model and plugged "real" variables into it when such a scenario is highly unlikely to ever arise. And if it did, it could not be used as a template for all other similar scenarios with any real precision. Why cant physics use the ACTUAL scenarios and then observe what is actually going on? They are missing a huge opportunity. The power exists to record interactions of matter and energy for long periods of time to collect raw data. Much data is already collected. But when that data does not behave in the "predicted" fashion, it is rejected as an anomaly or a mistake, OR new particles are invented (with somebody's name slapped on it now) to explain the discrepancy. The problem lies in how we are pursuing knowledge in physics, not physics itself.

I hear ya but there's still a lot in the universe that we've observed the effects of but have never seen, like black holes and atoms. We know they exist, we have a theory on how they work and we make assumptions based on the effects we observe on their surrounding environments. A black hole may be one of those things that we'll never fully understand even if we observe one directly because there is no physically possible way to ever look inside one. However, the theories we derive from such observations may be put into practical use in real-world conclusions. Perhaps constants are not an absolute reality but they help frame our understanding of the universe in a manner that allows us to put such discoveries into real world use (i.e. splitting an atom).

It's not quite like thinking the world is flat, which, in and of itself, led to nothing.

 

[Overmind One]

I hear ya but there's still a lot in the universe that we've observed the effects of but have never seen, like black holes and atoms. We know they exist, we have a theory on how they work and we make assumptions based on the effects we observe on their surrounding environments. A black hole may be one of those things that we'll never fully understand even if we observe one directly because there is no physically possible way to ever look inside one. However, the theories we derive from such observations may be put into practical use in real-world conclusions. Perhaps constants are not an absolute reality but they help frame our understanding of the universe in a manner that allows us to put such discoveries into real world use (i.e. splitting an atom).

It's not quite like thinking the world is flat, which, in and of itself, led to nothing.

Actually...we DONT really know that black holes exist. The math allows for them to exist, just like the math allows time travel to be possible, but in reality it cannot be possible. Time itself is a human perception, not a reality. All that is happening is movement. The changing of relative positions and the radiation of energy. All we know is that massive objects lie at the centers of every galaxy, pulling with enough gravity to capture millions of solar systems and stars and nebulae into its gravity well. It cannot be a "hole", and the notion that things are "falling into" these objects does not make sense to me. So, what is out there?

What I have observed, is that the same basic patterns of organization follow in the microcosm as they do in the macrocosm. Bohr created his atomic models by observing the structure of solar systems. That DOES make sense to me. Central energetic objects, orbited by passive mass, following orbital paths which are determined by what we call gravity. We see structural patterns in lifeforms like structures consisting of 5, 6, 8, 10, and we see spheres, discs, cylinders. But not in inanimate matter. In inanimate matter, we see shapes in crystals with 6 sides, cubes, trapezoids hexagons, etc. There are patterns and clues we can use to better theorize how our universe works. Math is great, but it is not authoritative. Modern physics worships the established equations and theories almost as Laws.

Until physics moves out of the dogma and major pillars fall (mainly the lightspeed constant), it will be stuck in concepts more than a century old.

 

[shavedape]

Actually...we DONT really know that black holes exist. The math allows for them to exist, just like the math allows time travel to be possible, but in reality it cannot be possible.

Black holes exist, believe me. Hell, I'm going to dinner with two of them tomorrow night.

 

[Overmind One]

Black holes exist, believe me. Hell, I'm going to dinner with two of them tomorrow night.

I dated one for years. Money went in, and everything else went in but nothing ever came out. :icon_rolleyes:

 

[Bluce Ree]

Actually...we DONT really know that black holes exist. The math allows for them to exist, just like the math allows time travel to be possible, but in reality it cannot be possible. Time itself is a human perception, not a reality. All that is happening is movement. The changing of relative positions and the radiation of energy. All we know is that massive objects lie at the centers of every galaxy, pulling with enough gravity to capture millions of solar systems and stars and nebulae into its gravity well. It cannot be a "hole", and the notion that things are "falling into" these objects does not make sense to me. So, what is out there?

What I have observed, is that the same basic patterns of organization follow in the microcosm as they do in the macrocosm. Bohr created his atomic models by observing the structure of solar systems. That DOES make sense to me. Central energetic objects, orbited by passive mass, following orbital paths which are determined by what we call gravity. We see structural patterns in lifeforms like structures consisting of 5, 6, 8, 10, and we see spheres, discs, cylinders. But not in inanimate matter. In inanimate matter, we see shapes in crystals with 6 sides, cubes, trapezoids hexagons, etc. There are patterns and clues we can use to better theorize how our universe works. Math is great, but it is not authoritative. Modern physics worships the established equations and theories almost as Laws.

Until physics moves out of the dogma and major pillars fall (mainly the lightspeed constant), it will be stuck in concepts more than a century old.

We know they exist due to the effects observed on the space around them. You can never directly observe a black hole because it neither gives off nor reflects light. It can, however, give off jets of gamma rays. We observe them eating stars and their gravitational effects on distant bodies. Here we're at about the same place as "knowing" atoms exist in spite of ever having actually observed one directly. Nobody has ever seen an atom.

I think you're misunderstanding the word "hole". A black hole is not a "hole" per se. It's referred to as a hole because nothing escapes it, including light. It's a term more than a physical description. A black hole is an object that is so massive it crushes all matter down to a singularity. An observer entering a black hole will be disappointed to find out it's nothing but a cosmic trash can where everything inside is crushed to infinity.

 

[shavedape]

We know they exist due to the effects observed on the space around them. You can never directly observe a black hole because it neither gives off nor reflects light. It can, however, give off jets of gamma rays. We observe them eating stars and their gravitational effects on distant bodies. Here we're at about the same place as "knowing" atoms exist in spite of ever having actually observed one directly. Nobody has ever seen an atom.

I think you're misunderstanding the word "hole". A black hole is not a "hole" per se. It's referred to as a hole because nothing escapes it, including light. It's a term more than a physical description. A black hole is an object that is so massive it crushes all matter down to a singularity. An observer entering a black hole will be disappointed to find out it's nothing but a cosmic trash can where everything inside is crushed to infinity.

That's what I find exciting about black holes, the compacting of matter down to a point that seems incomprehensible. It's fascinating stuff really.

What I find funny is that some people think that black holes are actual holes, like doorways leading to different universes. From what I understand if one would enter a black hole all they would find at the center (or bottom) of it would be a chunk of insanely compacted matter, not a doorway.

 

[Overmind One]

We know they exist due to the effects observed on the space around them. You can never directly observe a black hole because it neither gives off nor reflects light. It can, however, give off jets of gamma rays. We observe them eating stars and their gravitational effects on distant bodies. Here we're at about the same place as "knowing" atoms exist in spite of ever having actually observed one directly. Nobody has ever seen an atom.

I think you're misunderstanding the word "hole". A black hole is not a "hole" per se. It's referred to as a hole because nothing escapes it, including light. It's a term more than a physical description. A black hole is an object that is so massive it crushes all matter down to a singularity. An observer entering a black hole will be disappointed to find out it's nothing but a cosmic trash can where everything inside is crushed to infinity.

I cannot speculate about black "holes", but the idea tha something can become a "singularity" is illogical to me. But that is most likely because I dont see anything like it in the real universe. It could be a wormhole, however. Water draining down a hole takes on a striking similarity to a spiral galaxy. The jets and black holes must be related in some fashion. And if confirmed, then physics must look within and apply this to the atomic model. It is far more logical that molecules and atoms have a nano-singularity at their nucleii than a cluster of neat little uniform particles. The universe teaches us everything we need to know about itself, since we are part of it.

 

[Bluce Ree]

That's what I find exciting about black holes, the compacting of matter down to a point that seems incomprehensible. It's fascinating stuff really.

What I find funny is that some people think that black holes are actual holes, like doorways leading to different universes. From what I understand if one would enter a black hole all they would find at the center (or bottom) of it would be a chunk of insanely compacted matter, not a doorway.

I think we're far from fully understanding the atom, all of its properties and how far it can be compacted. Another thing I find interesting is that black holes will randomly emit large jets of material. These jets are fierce, shoot out at near light speed and can extend for light years.