1 2
6 7 8
Posted: 12/14/2007 2:48 AM
Quote
AQwertyZ
Joined: 12/3/2006
Posts: 131
Location: Seattle
nfq wrote:
time is not a dimension, it's motion
Space is just as important to the concept of motion as time is. By your reasoning, space isn't made up of dimensions either! To be fair, there are varying philosophical views on the nature of space and time. But, we shouldn't forget that the measured rate of flow of time varies depending on relative velocity. No matter which way one thinks about it, time can't be as simple as you propose. And before you tell me that special relativity is wrong and time flow doesn't vary with velocity, let me remind you that the formula E=mc^2 is directly derivable from the assumptions of special relativity. If E=mc^2 was false, the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan would not have worked. Special relativity can't possibly be incorrect! But you'll never give in to the constant barrage of facts, right? Maybe you'll argue that atomic bombs don't exist or that World War II didn't even happen! I honestly would not be surprised at this point.
Posted: 12/14/2007 5:51 AM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
both boco and and nfq seem to have misinterpreted me, probably due to lack context. for the record, my point was that if the definition of "god" is "a thing that created everything", then by definition, god, if it existed, created itself, and consequently i find the existence of a god, by that definition, to be implausible. it's not very relevent, tho. aqwertyz, the argument you make about special relativity seems to be fallacious. you seem to be saying that sr implies that E=mc^2, which is also implied by the success of the atomic bombs, and therefore, sr is correct. such an argument is, in any case, fallacious.
Posted: 12/14/2007 6:02 AM
Quote
AQwertyZ
Joined: 12/3/2006
Posts: 131
Location: Seattle
Bob A wrote:
aqwertyz, the argument you make about special relativity seems to be fallacious. you seem to be saying that sr implies that E=mc^2, which is also implied by the success of the atomic bombs, and therefore, sr is correct. such an argument is, in any case, fallacious.
I wasn't trying to prove that it is correct. Relativity is an incomplete theory and therefore must not be 100% correct. I was trying to say that there must be some truth to special relativity. nfq once commented that atomic clock experiments don't confirm relativity because "clocks aren't always accurate" so I wanted to give an example was easier to see that the result wasn't due to margins of error.
Posted: 12/14/2007 6:20 AM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
i see. tho your argument still seems tenuous to me. it seems that wikipedia should have something about evidence for special relativity.
Posted: 12/14/2007 6:28 AM
Quote
AQwertyZ
Joined: 12/3/2006
Posts: 131
Location: Seattle
http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html
In practice, it is not possible to convert all of the mass into energy. However, this equation led directly to the development of nuclear energy and the nuclear bomb - probably the most tangible results of special relativity.
As for Wikipedia, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Experimental_evidence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.
Posted: 12/14/2007 9:09 AM
Quote
Boco
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
Bob A wrote:
for the record, my point was that if the definition of "god" is "a thing that created everything", then by definition, god, if it existed, created itself, and consequently i find the existence of a god, by that definition, to be implausible.
Semantics. Change that to "God is what happens when you take 'everything' and subtract 'the universe' and it is 'the universe' that God created".
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Posted: 12/14/2007 5:06 PM
Quote
nfq
Player (93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
AQwertzy wrote:
If E=mc^2 was false, the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan would not have worked.
i never said that emc2 is wrong. even a 5 year old could have come up with that equation though. it just says that mass has lots of energy. big deal.
As for Wikipedia, I found this:
speaking of wikipedia. a few days ago i said that einstein didn't mean that gravity physically bends space, and wikipedia agrees with me. it says that it's just a mathematical model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Bob A wrote:
my point was that if the definition of "god" is "a thing that created everything", then by definition, god, if it existed, created itself,
my point is that my point makes your point pointless. god is the creator of everything, but it's impossible that he could have created himself.
Youtube channel | Goldeneye and PD TAS times
Posted: 12/14/2007 8:46 PM
Quote
Fabian
Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
nfq, Here's something I want to share with you about trolling. The secret to it is that you can't make it too obvious. If you do, people, even the stupidest of people, will eventually figure it out and get bored. To combat this and keep people coming back for more, you have to be a little bit subtle from time to time. If you try to shove the most unreasonable, unbelievable things you can come up with down people's throats, eventually they will notice something is up. Let me know if you need or want more help.
Zoey Ridin' High <Fabian_> I prett much never drunk
Posted: 12/14/2007 10:21 PM
Quote
Raiscan
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Fabian wrote:
To combat this and keep people coming back for more, you have to be a little bit subtle from time to time. If you try to shove the most unreasonable, unbelievable things you can come up with down people's throats, eventually they will notice something is up.
Gravity doesn't exist. /discuss
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Posted: 12/14/2007 10:30 PM
Quote
Wockes
Joined: 5/17/2007
Posts: 393
Location: Sweden
Raiscan wrote:
Gravity doesn't exist. /discuss
/sarcasm Taken from simple english wiki: "Gravity is a force. It makes things move toward each other. On the Earth, we see that it makes things fall toward the ground." Trust in the FORCE!
"No love for the game gear"
Posted: 12/15/2007 2:35 AM
Quote
RT-55J
Player (147)
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
Raiscan wrote:
Gravity doesn't exist. /discuss
I take it that you've never played Half-Life 2.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Posted: 12/15/2007 3:57 AM
Quote
nfq
Player (93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Raiscan wrote:
Gravity doesn't exist.
Gravity doesn't exist because it's actually just a form of electromagnetism. All objects are magnets because energy currents run through them.
Youtube channel | Goldeneye and PD TAS times
Posted: 12/15/2007 4:13 AM
Quote
mmbossman
Experienced player (822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
GBx TAS of 2008
Just like all animals are people because they have blood running through them.
Living Well Is The Best Revenge My Personal Page
Posted: 12/15/2007 9:03 AM
Quote
HHS
Active player (282)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 356
No, you're wrong. This is year 5121 of the Mayan calendar. That's why all animals are people. Well, another reason is that I know someone who has a cat.
Posted: 12/15/2007 3:52 PM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
nfq wrote:
Gravity doesn't exist because it's actually just a form of electromagnetism.
you know, i had a theory like that a long time ago. the idea was that two masses composed of magnetic poles, altho each magnetically neutral, would orient themselves so that each pole was diagonal to the corresponding pole on the other object and thus closer to the opposite pole than to it, and that the relative closeness of the poles on each mass could account for the weekness of gravity. i never looked into it, tho. oh, and by the way, greedy reductionism ftw!
Posted: 12/19/2007 11:56 AM
Quote
Rolken
Joined: 6/3/2005
Posts: 3
nfq wrote:
Gravity doesn't exist because it's actually just a form of electromagnetism. All objects are magnets because energy currents run through them.
OK, the interpretation of science is one of my pet topics, and as it's getting an insufficient treatment here (understandably so) I will come out from lurker mode. The problem with everything you're saying is that all it is is pretty ideas, and you cannot divorce physical ideas from their mathematical construction, because mathematics has been demonstrated to a high degree of precision to be the language of the universe. Let's look at this statement - "i never said that emc2 is wrong. even a 5 year old could have come up with that equation though. it just says that mass has lots of energy. big deal." You lack a sufficient appreciation for the implications of equations. Physicists don't just throw together equations because they sound good; they construct them to make very specific and verifiable predictions about how the world works. In this particular instance, it doesn't just say "mass has lots of energy", it says "this particular amount of mass is worth almost exactly 14.595 joules of energy". You can then verify that prediction through experimenting with a process that involves the conversion of mass to energy - for example, chemical reactions that form or break bonds, with an attendant gain or loss in mass that corresponds to the change in energy level. You can contest the validity of such experiments all day (and many have), but when all's said and done the proof is in the pudding. If modern physical theory was more than slightly incorrect in its predictions, then much of the technology you rely on simply would not work. Computer chips in particular are inextricably wedded to our understanding of low-level physical interactions, and GPS devices give inaccurate location readings if they're not calibrated for the effects of general relativity. That's not to say there isn't room for error and that our present physical understanding is 100% without flaw, because it isn't. But the crucial recognition is that where flaw is to be found, as with Einstein's overturning of Newton, it is way past the decimal point. Because the existing system works so well and has been vetted to such a high degree, any new system has to be almost exactly the same in its predictions to be reflective of reality as we see it function. In short, the people who have spent many more centuries than you working this stuff out are not morons. If there's mistake to be found, it won't be done sitting around and making up a new concept off the top of your head, it'll be done with decades of educated research and (very expensive) experimentation.
Posted: 12/20/2007 3:29 AM
Quote
AQwertyZ
Joined: 12/3/2006
Posts: 131
Location: Seattle
I could have written a similar lengthy response but it is no use. nfq starts with the premise that we are all wrong and goes from there.
Posted: 12/20/2007 4:52 PM
(Edited: 12/20/2007 5:01 PM)
Quote
nfq
Player (93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Rolken wrote:
it doesn't just say "mass has lots of energy", it says "this particular amount of mass is worth almost exactly 14.595 joules of energy".
how did he figure out that energy is exactly mc2? wild guess?
and GPS devices give inaccurate location readings if they're not calibrated for the effects of general relativity.
just because the math is correct in a theory doesn't mean that the theory is correct. in other words, just because clocks are affected by different physical circumstances doesn't mean that time is affected. clocks are not time.
If there's mistake to be found, it won't be done sitting around and making up a new concept off the top of your head, it'll be done with decades of educated research and (very expensive) experimentation.
to understand the universe, all you need is a brain. the ancient greeks understood the universe better than scientists do today, and they didn't use expensive experimentation. science gives us technology, but not much understanding. we can observe that things fall on the ground every time, but it doesn't mean that we understand it.
Youtube channel | Goldeneye and PD TAS times
Posted: 12/20/2007 4:58 PM
Quote
Baxter
Skilled player (1402)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
TAS of 2013 SNES TAS of 2013 Speedy TAS of 2007 Innovative TAS of 2007
nfq wrote:
how did he figure out that energy is exactly mc2? wild guess?
No, there is a beautifully intuitive theory behind it, but you will never know it because you are only interested in the truths you make up for yourself.
http://tasvideos.org/Baxter.html
Posted: 12/21/2007 12:34 AM
Quote
RT-55J
Player (147)
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
nfq wrote:
the ancient greeks understood the universe better than scientists do today
No. Just no.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Posted: 12/21/2007 1:43 AM
Quote
Rising_Tempest
Player (166)
Joined: 4/27/2006
Posts: 304
Location: Eastern Canada
Leaving God aside for a moment, evolution was mentioned earlier in this thread... my take on that is quite simple. Every species on the planet evolves over time due to need, save one. For example, we have a horse, enjoying to dine on the leaves of a tree. Well, the tree becomes quite pissed off with this and over time grows taller so the horse cannot reach it. The horse, dying of starvation, over time grows a longer neck (essentially becoming a giraffe) and triumphs over the evil tree. But no so fast asshole! The tree over time sprouts thorns (OF PAIN) on it's leaves, mangling the giraffes mouth in hopes of dealing sweet retribution as well as discouraging the creature from eating it. But the giraffe is a stubborn bastard, and with a cry of "fuck you buddy!" grow powerful sturdy jaws and PWNZ the thorns. ...and so on. Let us now examine man vs his dinner. Firstly, the man is content to beat the defenceless animals to death with his fists for food. The animal in turn, becomes more sturdy, Say, a shell like a turtle, or thick skin like an elephant etc. Man rips off a part of a tree and beats the animal to death with that instead. The animal grows jaws claws, and other unpleasantries to defend itself. Man laughs and creates the M8000 sniper rifle, and safely frags his dinner from a distance. Silly post aside, my point is that humans evolve differently than every other species on the planet in that rather than evolving our bodies we evolve our tools. That is why we're the dominant species. Bringing "God" back into the equation, based on my little exposition just now I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is a good reason for why we evolve differently than the rest of Earth's life forms. The answer may forever elude us, it could very well be some sort of deity, but with our current level of knowledge and understanding, knowing the reason is not possible. If we want to know the reason for our existance, our supremacy, or even the universe in general it's something we have to actively pursue. Simply claiming "God did it" strikes me as extremely lazy (conversely I don't think pure logic will yield the answers as well. take THAT, science). In short, my view on God is that he/she/it isn't an ultimate deity, creator, whatever; but merely the Ultimate Excuse. You may now crucify and stone me to death!
Posted: 12/21/2007 2:38 AM
(Edited: 12/21/2007 3:24 AM)
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
nfq wrote:
how did he figure out that energy is exactly mc2? wild guess?
Just by using his brain because that's everything you need to understand the universe like you spefically stated.
nfq wrote:
clocks are not time.
Do you know how an atomic clock works? Ask Wikipedia. How would you explain that atoms in a plane traveling around the earth move slower, if it doesn't mean time is moving slower inside that plane?
nfq wrote:
to understand the universe, all you need is a brain
Is the brain a part of the universe? Can a brain fully understand itself? All we have to understand the universe is our brain. We cannot understand the whole universe because it's bigger than our brain and it doesn't fit in. We can't understand every single atom. Of course humans love to generalise things and make up groups for similar ones. But they are only similar to us, in fact they might be very different to a species with different sense organs. Do you think every instance of an oxygen isotope looks the same and acts the same? Or is it just that we can't detect the differences yet? We'll sure make up new groups for it once we can. Our generalisations will never lead us to a formula that explains the whole universe. To me it seems as foolish to believe in this as it was foolish to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. I think it's possible that every small atom is as big as a universe and that our universe is as small as an atom to others.
Posted: 12/21/2007 2:42 AM
Quote
Rising_Tempest
Player (166)
Joined: 4/27/2006
Posts: 304
Location: Eastern Canada
"time" is a man made concept to catalogue and schedule our history. An illusion, albeit an extremely useful one. Like moneys.
Posted: 12/21/2007 3:02 AM
Quote
Kuwaga
Joined: 10/20/2006
Posts: 1248
I think our consciousness is our sense of time. I see it like a machine that constantly reads its own output, so its output becomes input again. And we can also save outputs, give them a number, and reread them later. This makes us aware of time because we can compare several junks of information and we know which came first. We can give them numbers because after we've remembered the first thing, our consciousness knows about it. Same is true for the second remembered piece of information. And that's why time seems linear to us. Though it might as well be flowing backwards or in circles or not at all, but just be there.
Posted: 12/21/2007 6:53 AM
Quote
PaToby
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 35
Location: Montreal
Rising Tempest wrote:
"time" is a man made concept to catalogue and schedule our history. An illusion, albeit an extremely useful one. Like moneys.
Days, hours, minutes and seconds are conception of man to keep track of it [time]. But "Time exist", you can see it. People die after a certain period [of time!]. Or wait is it just an illusion? As for god. If he [god] was to be a perfect being (or whatever you want to call it). He wouldn't have allowed wars and whatever kind of crap that happened/happens. I agree humans invented, weapons, property (which brought theft), etc. But if God would be perfect, he wouldn't have given the possibility to man's brain to think/invent of those (arguably bad) things. And it always bring the question of who created God? My guess? My parents did, 21 years ago.
Current Project: Zelda Low% Run Status: Rupee Route
1 2
6 7 8