FTL travel here we come!

[Overmind One]

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:

What is a "SWAG"?

 

[Bluce Ree]

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:

Sharp man! You, my friend, have earned yourself some GREEN!

 

[Joelist]

What is a "SWAG"?

Sophisticated Wild Arsed Guess

Actually I did do some really fast math (took approximately 3-4 minutes) to get the number I gave.

 

[Overmind One]

Sophisticated Wild Arsed Guess

Actually I did do some really fast math (took approximately 3-4 minutes) to get the number I gave.

Interesting....Bluce will understand why I asked about that acronym, but he wont tell! Thanks.

 

[Joelist]

Nope, Overmind, not that type of "swag"....

 

[mzzz]

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.
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"
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.

You're insisting on them all being alike but you can't assert that because you won't know, at quantum level, either a particle's position or its momentum, it's one or the other. Can't have both unless you allow probabilistic models with which you have to run multiple simulations to get a normal distribution curve (statistics).

I don't get where you're seeing absolutes. There's order, that much is obvious and there are relations between things. The constants aren't absolutes, they can change but will do so in an ordered fashion. I'm going to guess you don't really know calculus or even if you do, what it actually means. The whole notion of the baby derivative d/dx is change, and you can even calculate the change in the change, or d (squared)/dx (squared), this notion can be expanded even further. I mean, things don't start spontaneously exploding or just disintegrate. It's relatively ordered, this order is what gives rise to the constants.

No...entities as in whatever those restrictions. You're venturing more into something philosophical than scientific.

 

[mzzz]

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."



Channels are synced.





Beautifully stated.

sigh...there's no 'orbital system of particles', go learn some quantum since you try to pass yourself off as an advocate. A proton doesn't change meaning from one place to another. That's like saying the english meaning of apple changes from one place to other, scientists do not do this kind of vagueness, this doesn't happen in science. People don't rename things to suit their fancy. They have accepted terminology for this and that. You can't judge if systems are identical systems, learn what heisenberg's uncertainty principle is. No...they don't say a proton has a constant mass, they assign a particle group of base leptons that combine and give it a name, namely proton so as not to constantly repeat more words than they have to, it's a convention not the universe mandating what a proton is supposed to be. You're creating this false illusion that there are one group of scientists that think of a proton having this kind of mass and another group that says it has another mass. It's convention to make a proton what it is, not something that's subject to change of nomenclature. You're arguing about the language they choose to use, but to communicate, they have to have a uniform language. The disagreements they have are about the relations between the different entities that they give names to, not oh I don't like how you named the proton. They're not about how flowery their speech is, but the substance of their speech. The relations.

 

[Bluce Ree]

sigh...there's no 'orbital system of particles', go learn some quantum since you try to pass yourself off as an advocate. A proton doesn't change meaning from one place to another. That's like saying the english meaning of apple changes from one place to other, scientists do not do this kind of vagueness, this doesn't happen in science. People don't rename things to suit their fancy. They have accepted terminology for this and that. You can't judge if systems are identical systems, learn what heisenberg's uncertainty principle is. No...they don't say a proton has a constant mass, they assign a particle group of base leptons that combine and give it a name, namely proton so as not to constantly repeat more words than they have to, it's a convention not the universe mandating what a proton is supposed to be. You're creating this false illusion that there are one group of scientists that think of a proton having this kind of mass and another group that says it has another mass. It's convention to make a proton what it is, not something that's subject to change of nomenclature. You're arguing about the language they choose to use, but to communicate, they have to have a uniform language. The disagreements they have are about the relations between the different entities that they give names to, not oh I don't like how you named the proton. They're not about how flowery their speech is, but the substance of their speech. The relations.

All this physics talk has made my stomach enter a state of quantum hunger. I'm going to heat up some Lepton Cup O' Soup.

 

[mzzz]

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.

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?

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.

man, you are so silly. The current field of physics, yes I think I know more of that than you. Unless you have your own definition of physics. You say modern physics does none of these things, but you don't even know the knowledge in modern physics!

 

[Bluce Ree]

man, you are so silly. The current field of physics, yes I think I know more of that than you. Unless you have your own definition of physics. You say modern physics does none of these things, but you don't even know the knowledge in modern physics!

I know that microwaves make some really nasty textured food.

 

[mzzz]

I know that microwaves make some really nasty textured food.

Stop eating microwave food, didn't you get hitched and give up the bachelor life?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Stop eating microwave food, didn't you get hitched and give up the bachelor life?

Yes but it's so easy to reheat food sometimes, especially after a late workout when I'm too damned lazy to cook anything.

 

[Overmind One]

sigh...there's no 'orbital system of particles', go learn some quantum since you try to pass yourself off as an advocate. A proton doesn't change meaning from one place to another.

PROVE THAT. You cant. The assumed mass of the proton in "modern" physics is a constant, and therefore it is wrong. In the real universe, there are ORBITAL SYSTEMS which consist of a primary body and a smaller one orbiting it at a distance and speed determined by unique but similar factors. Dude you are NEVER going to understand anything if you uise your same tired century old physics dogma. You cannot prove that the proton has the same mass. You simply cannot, other than arbitrarily stating it, or giving me a page number of one of your books. What I am talking about is over your head. You only understand what is already written down.[/QUOTE]

That's like saying the english meaning of apple changes from one place to other, scientists do not do this kind of vagueness, this doesn't happen in science. People don't rename things to suit their fancy.

They do in "modern" physics. New particles are invented and named after their inventors on the order of about one per every two years.

They have accepted terminology for this and that. You can't judge if systems are identical systems, learn what heisenberg's uncertainty principle is. No...they don't say a proton has a constant mass, they assign a particle group of base leptons that combine and give it a name, namely proton so as not to constantly repeat more words than they have to, it's a convention not the universe mandating what a proton is supposed to be. You're creating this false illusion that there are one group of scientists that think of a proton having this kind of mass and another group that says it has another mass. It's convention to make a proton what it is, not something that's subject to change of nomenclature.

You are missing the point altogether. I am saying that the proton DOES have different masses, and that the whole lepton thing is wrong. IN MY VIEW. In the real universe, you do not have moons which have moons of their own. Bohr's model is probably wring. We see no such structures in space. And I believe that the same laws which apply to celestial objects apply to atomic particles on the atomic and sub-atomic scale. You can see celestial objects, but since we cannot see atomic particles, physics has constructed an illogical model of that world and there are all sorts of weird particles and notions about those particles which you cannot prove using math or anything else. You have to ASSUME values, then standardize them to make them work in equations. You keep trying to force me to accept the established dogma of modern physics and you do not seem to understand that I am rejecting most of the understanding you have of it out of hand. It does not make me ignorant, it makes me DIFFERENT. The fact is that you cannot prove that a lepton exists any more than you can weigh a proton or tell me what the nucleii of atoms actually looks like. The only exdamples we have are in space, on the macro scale of planets and stars. Your mind is focused on what you have been taught, and that is all well and good. Just don't try to say that the established dogma is absolutely correct because it is not. It is no more relevant than what I am proposing. I am theorizing.

You're arguing about the language they choose to use, but to communicate, they have to have a uniform language. The disagreements they have are about the relations between the different entities that they give names to, not oh I don't like how you named the proton. They're not about how flowery their speech is, but the substance of their speech. The relations.

I know that. But you do not seem to understand that I know that and am CHOOSING to take a different angle on it. Something needs to be done, since physics is stagnating. It has advanced slower than all other sciences.

 

[Joelist]

So if Susie and Billy were on opposite ends of the same perfectly straight road that is exactly 186,282 miles long, and they each get on their tricycles and start pedaling towards each other at 186,282 miles per second, at what spot on the road will they meet and if they collide head on what will happen?

 

[Overmind One]

man, you are so silly. The current field of physics, yes I think I know more of that than you. Unless you have your own definition of physics. You say modern physics does none of these things, but you don't even know the knowledge in modern physics!

I do have my own definition,and many others share my theories. People like you reject them because they are not in your textbooks. I am not attacking you, I am attacking modern physics. You most likely know LOTS about physics. Just like priests think they have a closer relationship with God than others. I am sitting there questioning the concept of God in the first place. I am not interested in studying religions. Physics today has become akin to a religion, with little based in the REAL universe. You remind me of the Architect in the Matrix! Everything is variables in an equation, balancing the equation...its all good though. Just stop trying to call me ignorant. You are not even a physicist yet. And when you complete your indoct...learning, you will still only be armed with what you have been TAUGHT. It is when you transcend that were progress is made.

 

[shavedape]

So if Susie and Billy were on opposite ends of the same perfectly straight road that is exactly 186,282 miles long, and they each get on their tricycles and start pedaling towards each other at 186,282 miles per second, at what spot on the road will they meet and if they collide head on what will happen?

The answer is: Purple.

(What did I win?)

 

[Bluce Ree]

So if Susie and Billy were on opposite ends of the same perfectly straight road that is exactly 186,282 miles long, and they each get on their tricycles and start pedaling towards each other at 186,282 miles per second, at what spot on the road will they meet and if they collide head on what will happen?

They will never meet because they would disintegrate the instant they started moving.

 

[Bluce Ree]

The answer is: Purple.

(What did I win?)

A purple flannel shirt!

 

[Joelist]

They will never meet because they would disintegrate the instant they started moving.

If our board would let me I would have Greened you (got the "spread some around" message). Poor tykes....shows what happens when mischievous kids try to pedal at lightspeed....:surprise:

 

[mzzz]

PROVE THAT. You cant. The assumed mass of the proton in "modern" physics is a constant, and therefore it is wrong. In the real universe, there are ORBITAL SYSTEMS which consist of a primary body and a smaller one orbiting it at a distance and speed determined by unique but similar factors. Dude you are NEVER going to understand anything if you uise your same tired century old physics dogma. You cannot prove that the proton has the same mass. You simply cannot, other than arbitrarily stating it, or giving me a page number of one of your books. What I am talking about is over your head. You only understand what is already written down.

They do in "modern" physics. New particles are invented and named after their inventors on the order of about one per every two years.



You are missing the point altogether. I am saying that the proton DOES have different masses, and that the whole lepton thing is wrong. IN MY VIEW. In the real universe, you do not have moons which have moons of their own. Bohr's model is probably wring. We see no such structures in space. And I believe that the same laws which apply to celestial objects apply to atomic particles on the atomic and sub-atomic scale. You can see celestial objects, but since we cannot see atomic particles, physics has constructed an illogical model of that world and there are all sorts of weird particles and notions about those particles which you cannot prove using math or anything else. You have to ASSUME values, then standardize them to make them work in equations. You keep trying to force me to accept the established dogma of modern physics and you do not seem to understand that I am rejecting most of the understanding you have of it out of hand. It does not make me ignorant, it makes me DIFFERENT. The fact is that you cannot prove that a lepton exists any more than you can weigh a proton or tell me what the nucleii of atoms actually looks like. The only exdamples we have are in space, on the macro scale of planets and stars. Your mind is focused on what you have been taught, and that is all well and good. Just don't try to say that the established dogma is absolutely correct because it is not. It is no more relevant than what I am proposing. I am theorizing.





I know that. But you do not seem to understand that I know that and am CHOOSING to take a different angle on it. Something needs to be done, since physics is stagnating. It has advanced slower than all other sciences.

It's not a constant. It's convention, the proton breaks down in high energy fields into its base constituents. The convention being under certain ambient conditions we treat this entity to be fixed within those ambient conditions and study the effects it has on other 'things' within those same ambient conditions. Bohr's model was abandoned over 80 years ago. You're still arguing from what you learned in those really basic physics classes. They only teach the basic physics models in those early classes in order to build towards the more advanced models because you need a certain level of mathematical and physics maturity before you can tackle the advanced models.

It's nice to use your own definitions and philosophies to try to dictate physics, but that's not scientific and is not an argument. That's just you dictating your personal philosophy/religion/world beliefs, whatever you want to call it. Lemme know when you have an argument from the basis of modern science, logic, and maths instead of your personal biases/beliefs/personal experiences/basically anything that's irrelevant to your argument.