FTL travel here we come!

[Bluce Ree]

You're asking me?

Well, yeah. You postulated that Jim will be able to go further back upon discovering his alter ego went back before him after Jim went back the first time to seize control of Jim's account.

 

[shavedape]

Yes. But I forgot, Jim could have taken another trip back in time arriving before the hacker arrived back in time before he arrived back in time and removed all of that sensitive data from his GF profile.

So what you're saying is that you could be your own father. Hmm...

 

[Stonelesscutter]

So what you're saying is that you could be your own father. Hmm...

No mr. Freud that's not what that said.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Well, yeah. You postulated that Jim will be able to go further back upon discovering his alter ego went back before him after Jim went back the first time to seize control of Jim's account.

Sorry bro, I don't have the answer. But perhaps Shaved knows!

 

[Bluce Ree]

So what you're saying is that you could be your own father. Hmm...

A real paradox would be if he was his own mother.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

A real paradox would be if he was his own mother.

Don't give him ideas.

 

[SciphonicStranger]

A real paradox would be if he was his own mother.

That could explain many things.

Can we get back to the math now? It is riveting...

 

[shavedape]

A real paradox would be if he was his own mother.

The problem with this scenario is that Stoneless would make an ugly woman. Let's not even play here. Can you imagine him in a dress and makeup? The options for partners would be limited outside of a turkey baster. He may make a pretty man, but a woman, mmm, I'm guessing not so much.

 

[Overmind One]

OMG! I am sorry!

My account has been hacked.

Oh sh@! I accidentally responded by editing your original post! I will repost your original and make mine separate. I thought I was responding but I edited your original post! IM SORRY. I will fix when I get home.

Your account is fine, and you are no longer on moderation here at GateFans. I think this thread is very interesting, and I would like for you to continue participating. But I think I have been very consistent in what I have been saying.

 

[Overmind One]

the point is there is no constants in an ever changing adapting and evolving universe if you fail to grasp such an easy concept i feel sorry for you.
(i already did but for other unrelated issues.)





no they dont "constants" are a human conept and obviously FLAWED since new data allways disproves said constants and truths eventually or do you still believe the earth is flat and we arwe the center of the universe?



i question it and im SOMEONE.

and yes HUMAN machines and constructs not natural ones and they are not constants.



isnt it? intresting.




it was a way of getting his point across not another topic

You understand PERFECTLY what I am trying to say in this thread. Sure, anybody can spout the dogma. Ask any Christian how many days it took to create the earth and they will tell you 6 days. But did something REALLY create the earth in 6 days? If you gave any answer to the contrary in the Dark Ages, it could have cost one his/her life. Physics is not usually the target of skeptics. That is because nobody really studies it much anymore these days. But I did, and I was turned off by all the Einsteinian dogma. I was heavily into Star Trek and I got tired of my professor talking about how it will "always be impossible" to travel faster than light or even AS FAST as light because mass would increase to infinity and because Einstein said so.

Well, even Einstein said his constants were only convenience. Just like Alfred Binet, creator of the Stanford-Binet IQ test said that the test could not measure intelligence. So, why are we using the test to measure intelligence? . Its the Lemmings Syndrome.

 

[Overmind One]

Fixed Response.

All of those are arbitrary constants are they not? That is my point.

No, the constants in the above equation are not arbitrary. The values of the constants have been empirically determined.

By definition, "empirically determined" describes an arbitrary measurement or value. Just SAYING something is constant does not make it so. Mathematics use arbitrary units for calculation, and the values of those unites are 100% arbitrary, sorry.

We can create constants much like we create values like religious deities, moral codes, and social tenets. But do they PHYSICALLY exist? No, they dont.

Yes, the constants do exist because they were determined by experiment. Religious deities, moral codes, and social tenets are not empirically determined by experiment.

Experiments also yielded the Flat Earth theory, the existence of Piltdown Man, the "science" of Phrenology, the construct of "race", the formulation of the Stanford-Binet IQ test, and the belief at one time that Man would never be able to travel faster than the speed of sound. Experimentation is the way to solutions, but not if those experiments are compromised by flaws in methodology. There are no constants observed in the physical universe.

Mathematical equations using constants and used to describe constants is convenient, but hardly incontrovertible.

The constants in the above equation are questioned by virtually no one. They are used extensively in the design of machines and structures that are used by humans on a daily basis.

EXACTLY MY POINT. It was the same way before Einstein. Physics was about Newton and some others, but there was more than a century of stagnant, dogmatic adhesion to crusty old ideas. So now, we have visionaries coming into the fold, the possibility of faster than light particles being observed in the physical universe, re-thinking gravitation and the foundations of physics itself. I am uninterested in the lemming physics, its boring. It reminds me of classical music. I was trained to play JS Bach, I love the music and the challenge of playing three part fugues and sprightly arpeggios, but the fact is that the only creativity involved in it is interpretation of SOMEBODY ELSES art. Its why classical music is never new, and never much different. But its composer, that person was a visionary.

I cannot prove that God exists or does not exist, but the notion of God is a construct like physical constants are.

The question whether or not God exists is not an empirical question.

For many, it is very much an empirical question.

It only takes a consensus of agreement to make them real despite any empirical evidence to the contrary.

There is no empirical evidence to the contrary. Water is a Newtonian fluid, and the mechanics of water flow is determined the Navier-Stokes equation. Air is a Newtonian fluid, and the mechanics of air flow is determined by the Navier-Stokes equation. Liquid concrete is not a Newtonian fluid, so the Navier-Stokes equation must be modified appropriately.

This is what I am talking about...LOL. So, was was the fluid before Newton slapped his name on it? And what were/are the mechanics of water flow before Navier and Stokes put their names on it? Why do so many of our natural processes now have people's names attached to them? Science was a much different thing before the 19th Century. People did not put their names on processes, on days of the week, on chemicals. They did not add in months to the calendar to glorify themselves. Just sayin. Physics should not hit a dead end because of dogma.

Like the concept of "race" for instance.

Race is off topic.

No moreso than God or any other topic. :icon_e_wink:

 

[OMNI]

You understand PERFECTLY what I am trying to say in this thread. Sure, anybody can spout the dogma. Ask any Christian how many days it took to create the earth and they will tell you 6 days. But did something REALLY create the earth in 6 days? If you gave any answer to the contrary in the Dark Ages, it could have cost one his/her life. Physics is not usually the target of skeptics. That is because nobody really studies it much anymore these days. But I did, and I was turned off by all the Einsteinian dogma. I was heavily into Star Trek and I got tired of my professor talking about how it will "always be impossible" to travel faster than light or even AS FAST as light because mass would increase to infinity and because Einstein said so.

Well, even Einstein said his constants were only convenience. Just like Alfred Binet, creator of the Stanford-Binet IQ test said that the test could not measure intelligence. So, why are we using the test to measure intelligence? . Its the Lemmings Syndrome.

indeed i do but i expand this view and apply it to everything in society, nature, universe, cooking, human behaviour etc etc and i really think its appliable to everything
you know constant change/flux/evolution bla bla, and yes i also grew up in "NO" (Nature Orientation) class being told that this and that works like this and so on but when i asked were is the proof the teacher would allways sling out either this or that theory for such and such and i would ask isnt a "THOERY" just speculation and in most cases one mans (or more) oppinion not proven substantiated FACT then id usually get the "look" and be told that i was far to young to fully grasp the geniousnes of men such as Einstein and i shouldnt question everything (which is a WTF all on its on since i thought that was what school was suposed to do ie get kids intreted and start asking WHY for themselfs not being told what is what then never thinking about it again since someone told them how someone else theorized that hings were and said theory is regarded as fact ).

now in my slightly older years my intrest for physics and the general logic/illogic that governs my existance still remains and as such i will dismiss THEORY until definitive PROOF of said theory can be given and EXPLAINED even to a layman such as myself as nature isnt complex and consitent of 3000000000000000000000 diffrent matematical equations it is MUCH simpler then that as the simplest most effective for of whatever will allways win ie nature doesnt overcomplicate the way we humans and our scientists want to believe it SIMPLIFIES that is the closest i can come to believeing in constants in this universe but not even that is a certainty as it may only apear so from our limited POV and what we are able to percive as 3 dimensional physical beings.

as for Einstein and his place on the high pedestal of physics i also grew up hating the so called facts he came up with made FTL an impossibility along with the utter ridiculousness of what his equations actually mean when one thinks about it from a logical POV rather then a mathematical formula also ive kept reading seeing and hearing that his work is inhearantly FLAWED as if it was perfect and proven then we would have a damned UNIFIED FIELD THEORY by now which we dont and we are no where near close to having using Einsteins works as a base and trying to combine it with what we can actually see taste and feel in the world around us.

anyway these latest findings and the confirmation of faster then light particles from the LHC has given me hope that one day perhaps before my time on this plane of existance is up we will have made some progress which physics hasnt done in a hundred or so years bc of general acceptance of einsteins wild THEORYS.

ok turned into a bit of a rant... maybe what i said makes some sence to you maybe it doesnt ill let you be the judge of that man keep in mind im on painkillers so me brain could be classified as a tad mushy atm.

 

[OMNI]

By definition, "empirically determined" describes an arbitrary measurement or value. Just SAYING something is constant does not make it so. Mathematics use arbitrary units for calculation, and the values of those unites are 100% arbitrary, sorry.


Experiments also yielded the Flat Earth theory, the existence of Piltdown Man, the "science" of Phrenology, the construct of "race", the formulation of the Stanford-Binet IQ test, and the belief at one time that Man would never be able to travel faster than the speed of sound. Experimentation is the way to solutions, but not if those experiments are compromised by flaws in methodology. There are no constants observed in the physical universe.


EXACTLY MY POINT. It was the same way before Einstein. Physics was about Newton and some others, but there was more than a century of stagnant, dogmatic adhesion to crusty old ideas. So now, we have visionaries coming into the fold, the possibility of faster than light particles being observed in the physical universe, re-thinking gravitation and the foundations of physics itself. I am uninterested in the lemming physics, its boring. It reminds me of classical music. I was trained to play JS Bach, I love the music and the challenge of playing three part fugues and sprightly arpeggios, but the fact is that the only creativity involved in it is interpretation of SOMEBODY ELSES art. Its why classical music is never new, and never much different. But its composer, that person was a visionary.



For many, it is very much an empirical question.


This is what I am talking about...LOL. So, what was the fluid before Newton slapped his name on it? And what were/are the mechanics of water flow before Navier and Stokes put their names on it? Why do so many of our natural processes now have people's names attached to them? Science was a much different thing before the 19th Century. People did not put their names on processes, on days of the week, on chemicals. They did not add in months to the calendar to glorify themselves. Just sayin. Physics should not hit a dead end because of dogma.



No moreso than God or any other topic. :icon_e_wink:

couldnt agree more with bolded parts!
and i add that i love the classical music annalogy as it was SPOT ON!
im even going to green you for it.

 

[Overmind One]

Multi-quote, apparently, does not work on gatefans (It does not work on the other web site either.). I wanted to quote both my statements and your replies, but I just got your responses.

If the universe is a ΛΟΓΟϚ and not a ΧΆΟϚ, then it's behavior can be described quantitatively. That quantitative description will include some constants.

Multi quotes work here. Use the quote symbol with the +sign on the bottom right of each post to use it.

You can ONLY quantify the Universe if you make assumptions about it. Constants = assumptions. In the physical universe, there are no constants on the macro or micro level observed. Not even on the quantum level. That is the fact. We use constants for CONVENIENCE mathematically and operationally only. They do not exist any more than a perfect circle or perfect square exists in nature.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Multi quotes work here. Use the quote symbol with the +sign on the bottom right of each post to use it.

You can ONLY quantify the Universe if you make assumptions about it. Constants = assumptions. In the physical universe, there are no constants on the macro or micro level observed. Not even on the quantum level. That is the fact. We use constants for CONVENIENCE mathematically and operationally only. They do not exist any more than a perfect circle or perfect square exists in nature.

I think he means quotes within quotes.

 

[OMNI]

I think he means quotes within quotes.

well if you do the coding right that works fine..

 

[Overmind One]

indeed i do but i expand this view and apply it to everything in society, nature, universe, cooking, human behaviour etc etc and i really think its appliable to everything
you know constant change/flux/evolution bla bla, and yes i also grew up in "NO" (Nature Orientation) class being told that this and that works like this and so on but when i asked were is the proof the teacher would allways sling out either this or that theory for such and such and i would ask isnt a "THEORY" just speculation and in most cases one mans (or more) opinion not proven substantiated FACT then id usually get the "look" and be told that i was far to young to fully grasp the geniousnes of men such as Einstein and i shouldnt question everything (which is a WTF all on its on since i thought that was what school was suposed to do ie get kids intreted and start asking WHY for themselfs not being told what is what then never thinking about it again since someone told them how someone else theorized that hings were and said theory is regarded as fact ).

Well, my high school science teacher thought my ideas had merit and he also believed that physics had reached a standstill because of Einstein. But he did not go as far as to teach it to the class. He would always qualify Einstein as a theorist. But in college, it was a different story. My physics professor was an old man. Had to be over 60 and his name was McElrath. He would discount all theories not part of "scholarly physics". He insisted that one must fully grasp the genius of Einstein and his theorems before attempting to move forward to different ideas. I disagreed with him frequently. I had a huge argument with him about the speed of light. I asked him to apply the same equations to the speed of sound and give me the value. He was precise and said "768mph". But this is only true if the air is dry and uniform and the exact same measuring device is used each time. Hardly a constant value, since those conditions are rare and artificial. An ASSUMPTION of variables and their values.

now in my slightly older years my intrest for physics and the general logic/illogic that governs my existance still remains and as such i will dismiss THEORY until definitive PROOF of said theory can be given and EXPLAINED even to a layman such as myself as nature isnt complex and consitent of 3000000000000000000000 diffrent matematical equations it is MUCH simpler then that as the simplest most effective for of whatever will allways win ie nature doesnt overcomplicate the way we humans and our scientists want to believe it SIMPLIFIES that is the closest i can come to believeing in constants in this universe but not even that is a certainty as it may only apear so from our limited POV and what we are able to percive as 3 dimensional physical beings.

EXACTLY correct. Nature simplifies things. One thing it shows us is that NOTHING is constant. Everything is in a constant state of flux and nothing is uniform or perfect. Our brains can conceive of perfection, but that perfection does not exist in reality. There is no such thing as a perfect cube in the universe. Or a perfect globe or circle. But we can describe those perfect objects with mathematics and even calculate relationships to them with other such objects. We can draw approximations of them in computers and even see them on a screen. But still, they do not exist in reality. Physics can tell us a lot when it comes to destroying matter. It knows all about fission, radiation, the strong and weak forces, and densities of elements. But it knows almost nothing of gravitation, fusion, transmutation or amalgamation (at supercooled temperatures). There is no unified theory. Only part of one half of it.

as for Einstein and his place on the high pedestal of physics i also grew up hating the so called facts he came up with made FTL an impossibility along with the utter ridiculousness of what his equations actually mean when one thinks about it from a logical POV rather than a mathematical formula also ive kept reading seeing and hearing that his work is inhearantly FLAWED as if it was perfect and proven then we would have a damned UNIFIED FIELD THEORY by now which we dont and we are no where near close to having using Einsteins works as a base and trying to combine it with what we can actually see taste and feel in the world around us.

anyway these latest findings and the confirmation of faster then light particles from the LHC has given me hope that one day perhaps before my time on this plane of existance is up we will have made some progress which physics hasnt done in a hundred or so years bc of general acceptance of einsteins wild THEORYS.

ok turned into a bit of a rant... maybe what i said makes some sence to you maybe it doesnt ill let you be the judge of that man keep in mind im on painkillers so me brain could be classified as a tad mushy atm.

PRECISELY. Until there is something more promising to be gained by challenging (and hopefully toppling) the Einsteinian monolith of general and special relativity and all the stupid "constants" that have been established, physics stagnates and only gives us what it has been giving us. A well played sonata, perfect in its execution....and yet just another countless refrain of the same sonata played hundreds of years after it was COMPOSED by a true musical visionary.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Oh sh@! I accidentally responded by editing your original post! I will repost your original and make mine separate. I thought I was responding but I edited your original post! IM SORRY. I will fix when I get home.

Your account is fine, and you are no longer on moderation here at GateFans. I think this thread is very interesting, and I would like for you to continue participating. But I think I have been very consistent in what I have been saying.

Looks like we found our time traveler.

 

[Overmind One]

Looks like we found our time traveler.

I cant believe I edited his post like that! I was doing it from my laptop and did not notice. But his original post has been completely restored without my edits, and my response is above. Interesting thread, BTW. I going to do a whole new thread on the comical antics of some ambitious physics students and scholars, with Stephen Hawking leading the pack (yep, him). He may be yet the last well known "old school" physics figurehead. There is a distinct "physics royalty" based in certain scholarly circles and accreditation from established physics organizations in Europe and the US. They have little to do with the science of physics and everything to do with recognition, publication of journals, inclusion into alumni lists and preferential treatment when it comes to tenure in universities. Year after year, select physics students get to "discover" new subatomic particles and attach their names to them. There are similar "honor structures" in astronomy and chemistry. Not so much in biology or genetics.

Anyway, this subject gets my brain jogging. I am indeed the Time Traveler!

 

[OMNI]

Well, my high school science teacher thought my ideas had merit and he also believed that physics had reached a standstill because of Einstein. But he did not go as far as to teach it to the class. He would always qualify Einstein as a theorist. But in college, it was a different story. My physics professor was an old man. Had to be over 60 and his name was McElrath. He would discount all theories not part of "scholarly physics". He insisted that one must fully grasp the genius of Einstein and his theorems before attempting to move forward to different ideas. I disagreed with him frequently. I had a huge argument with him about the speed of light. I asked him to apply the same equations to the speed of sound and give me the value. He was precise and said "768mph". But this is only true if the air is dry and uniform and the exact same measuring device is used each time. Hardly a constant value, since those conditions are rare and artificial. An ASSUMPTION of variables and their values.



EXACTLY correct. Nature simplifies things. One thing it shows us is that NOTHING is constant. Everything is in a constant state of flux and nothing is uniform or perfect. Our brains can conceive of perfection, but that perfection does not exist in reality. There is no such thing as a perfect cube in the universe. Or a perfect globe or circle. But we can describe those perfect objects with mathematics and even calculate relationships to them with other such objects. We can draw approximations of them in computers and even see them on a screen. But still, they do not exist in reality. Physics can tell us a lot when it comes to destroying matter. It knows all about fission, radiation, the strong and weak forces, and densities of elements. But it knows almost nothing of gravitation, fusion, transmutation or amalgamation (at supercooled temperatures). There is no unified theory. Only part of one half of it.



PRECISELY. Until there is something more promising to be gained by challenging (and hopefully toppling) the Einsteinian monolith of general and special relativity and all the stupid "constants" that have been established, physics stagnates and only gives us what it has been giving us. A well played sonata, perfect in its execution....and yet just another countless refrain of the same sonata played hundreds of years after it was COMPOSED by a true musical visionary.

glad we agree we have a similar view regarding the physics of the world around us
now if we could just figure out how to apply this in order to ascend... then shove lightning bolts up the buts of these stagnant theorists...