(the state of which i am at now is somewhat of a temporary high which is why im posting this, just in case you wondered.)

2: Goal... We seem to be programmed with certain basic needs that we must fulfill to keep us alive. Plus, we have mechanisms for creating pleasure, so we have incentive to pursue those avenues. My goal is to have the highest pleasure-hour total possible, by having fun and living a long time. This is a balance between having fun and doing things to sustain life. Some of us think ahead and allow ourselves to be put in better positions for fun later.

3: The deja vu is merely a misfiring of brain chemicals that normally go off when you have a recollection. The chemicals sit around in your brain long enough to fool us into thinking we've been through those circumstances before.

Thus, my outlook on life.

------------------
Dear Mr. cr0bar,
we wants a geek forum!
Thanx,
Damien S. Lucifer

quote:

---

Deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

---

I was waiting for that one...

------------------
Remember, its all your fault.

2) The higher goal in being here is merely to reproduce and to further our species. This sounds like a single minded attitude but when you get down to it we're very similar to ants only we have a far higher feeling of self-worth.

3) Who know what the hell deja vu really is. I've been told all sorts of stuff like "your entire life and future is completely pre-mapped and planned, and deja vu is a peek into what's going to happen" and "It's a flash from the future via a tri-dimension sphincter" blah blah.

But that's just my opinion. :-)

------------------
"Don't do that son, you'll go blind."
"I'm over here, dad."

< http://www.ath0.net >

You have to be able to answer this question:
if you died right now, how would you feel about your life?

------------------
Self Improvement Is Masterbation. Self Destruction is the answer.

------------------
"Don't do that son, you'll go blind."
"I'm over here, dad."

< http://www.ath0.net >

1. If there is a why for us to exist, something more than just a random combination of reactions and circumstances, then we will find out eventually and i'll tell you all if i ever find out.

2. My higher goal is to help advance the human race, whether to do something great myself or to have children that do.

3. As far as deja-vu, I don't know, i get it enough, but the glimpses are too small for me to change anything. Maybe i'll figure more out later.

There are also a few funny memories I have that when i think of them, no matter how long it's been, I still bust out laughing. I love those

------------------
aventari
"Stupid soap, i will 0wn j00!!" -I think you know

and like when photons from diferent universes cross paths with the ones in our own, all things in the multiverse can affect all other things in the multiverse.

it's not a memory really, it's a sort of momentary synch state with myself in a universe very similar to this one.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

I used to belive the glitch thing... but one time I actually DID "use" this abillity:
I was at work, and I was trying to get REALLY tight nut off of a bolt. And then I had that weird "Deja Vu" feeling, and I "remembered" myself removing it by prying it with a little peice of metal that I got from somewhere in the building that I'd never been before. So I went over there, found it right where I "remembered", and then went back and it worked perfectly!

Weird, huh?

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

lets say i see 3 people one day randomly, and where they move and what the say. i dream that night, and get deja vu imprinted in my subconscious, the next day those guys are in a different place but i remember this is the deja vu then. this might be because of the places those people moved to and of what they said, even though you didnt listen.

try this- drink a lot of caffiene and then sleep. you'll find maybe that your dream goes much faster because of how hyper your brain is, or how fast you get things done in your brain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
and like when photons from diferent universes cross paths with the ones in our own, all things in the multiverse can affect all other things in the multiverse.

---

Are we talking about parallel universes here, or what? "Multiverse" is the term that physicists use to describe a theoretical "universe of universes," the place out of which our universe was born and evolved, and out of which, theoretically, other universes could have been born and evolved in different ways (that is, different masses for elementary particles such as quarks, gluons, etc, leading to different relative strengths of physical forces.)

As for deja-vu, or times when you seem to have already known what the future will hold, your unconscious mind is a lot smarter than most people believe, and will take things that you didn't even notice and piece them together in ways that you would probably never think of. This is the process that dreams come from: your brain going over events of the day and trying to make sense out of them. If your unconscious pieces together some information that you might need, it communicates that to you either through a dream, a sudden insight, or a similar method. Thus, a "deja-vu" could be seen as an instance when your unconscious is saying "told you so."

that doesnt sound very likely

This experiment expolits the wave-particle duality that quantum particles (or is that waves?) tend to have.

An experiment designed to look for waves will see waves, and an experiment designed to look for particles will see particles. Young's slit experiment is designed to see waves.

The photon emitter is calibrated only to emit one photon at a time. This photon is then directed through the double slits and onto the screen behind. After a few million photons have gone through, you see an interference pattern, but only waves can do that. Therefore our `particle' photon has turned into a 'wave' photon, gone through both slits, interfered with itself and created the interference pattern.

------------------
Remember, its all your fault.

quote:

---

Originally posted by solid:
---------------------------------------------
1. Why do we exist
2. What's the higher goal in being here
3. Deja Vu. Why can you somewhat see the future, and why not be able to change it.
---------------------------------------------

---

We exist simply because The Maker wished it.

Our higher goal is to improve ourselves through each genaration by only letting the best to reproduce.(well considering the crap in the gene pool we fucked that up)

Daja Vu is when The Maker tries to show you a bit of the future so you can change it if you find it nessary.

------------------
Leaving the trees was a bad idea.
< TeamWolfguard.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by masher:
I think this is understandable. If not, say so.

---

According to Feynman and most other people involved in quantum mechanics, _no one_ really understands how it works...

As for the two-slit experiment, the reason for the interference is not photons from a different time line. The explanation is that, when you don't observe what path it takes, a photon is free to travel through all possible paths simultaneously. Most of these paths tend to cancel out, leaving just a single path that the photon travels, but in the case of the double-slit experiment, the photon interferes with itself because it travels through both slits at the same time.

Furthermore, it isn't only photons that can do this. Electrons, and even whole atoms, and theoretically anything in the world, can behave like a wave rather than a particle under the right circumstances.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

multiverse - as in the multiverse is constantly creating new universes that split off at every single instant. each universe in the multiverse grows and evolves on its own, almost completely independent from the other universes in the multiverse - so far as we know.

---

This is one interpretation of the laws of quantum physics, except that each universe in the multiverse is completely independent from the other universes in the multiverse, not almost, as kuru said previously.

In this interpretation, every single way in which an event can happen, a new universe is created with it happening in each different way. For example, Schrodinger's cat. A cat is put in a box with a radioactive element, a geiger counter and a vial of poison. The geiger counter is hooked up so that when it registers a radioactive decay, it breaks to vial of poison and kills the cat. After a certain amount of time, there is a 50/50 chance that the radioavtive element has decayed, and therefore a 50/50 chance that the cat is dead. We know that if we open the box at this instant the cat has a equal chance of being alive or dead. If in our universe the cat is alive, then in the mulitverse, another universe was created with the cat dead, and vice versa.

This is know as the multiverse interpretation. In the Copenhagen interpretation, Erwin's cat is in a mixed state of being both alive and dead at the same time. This superposition of states is fixed to a certain reality when we observe the cat. The act of obervation collapses the cats wavefunction, and it becomes either dead or alive.

I think this is understandable. If not, say so.

------------------
Remember, its all your fault.

photons.

you do an experiment in which you emit 1 photon at a time from a light source in a sealed vaccuum room. aim it at a card with 2 slits in it, and record what happens on the other side.

you get a pattern of light and dark bars recorded..... because the photons travel both like waves, and like particles, and get interference from /somewhere/.

since we know there is nothing else in the sealed room, the only place to get interference from is another universe in the multiverse.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

--J

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
According to Feynman and most other people involved in quantum mechanics, _no one_ really understands how it works...

---

Thats right. I think it was Niels Bohr who said that anyone who says that they understand quantum physics is an idiot. Or words to that effect anyway...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
...when you don't observe what path it takes, a photon is free to travel through all possible paths simultaneously. Most of these paths tend to cancel out, leaving just a single path that the photon travels, but in the case of the double-slit experiment, the photon interferes with itself because it travels through both slits at the same time.

---

You're right there. If we observe the photon in midflight, we just get a normal splodge of photons, no interference pattern. This is because we have broken down the wave properties of the photon and forced it to become a particle, and a particle cannot create an interference pattern. You can't say which path the photon took at all. To say which path it took requires an observation which would corrupt the experiment, as explained above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
Furthermore, it isn't only photons that can do this. Electrons, and even whole atoms, and theoretically anything in the world, can behave like a wave rather than a particle under the right circumstances.

---

The wavelength of a particle is determined by its rest mass and velocity according to the de Broglie equation:

lambda=h/(m*v)

lambda is the wavelength (m)
h is Planck's constant (6.6261x10^-34 Js)
m is the mass of the object (kg)
v is the velocity of the object (ms^-1)

Here is an interesting thought experiment. You want to diffract yourself through a doorway. Diffraction is a property of waves, and occurs when the wave is incident on particles that have a spacing of the same magnitude as its wavelength.

Let us assume that the doorway is 0.7 m wide (this means that lambda needs to be about 0.7m) and our person weighs 70 kg.

l=h/(m*v)

rearranging gives

v=h/(m*l)

if we put all our numbers into this equation we get

v=6.6261x10^-34 / (70*0.7)
=6.6261x10^-34 / (49)
=1.35x10^-35 ms^-1
which is pretty goddamned slow. If we assume that we have to travel 10 cm (0.1 m) in order to pass through the door and diffract, then this will take

v=d/t
t=d/v
t=0.1/1.35x10^-35
=7.4x10^33 s

To say that is a fairly large number is an understatement. If you take the age of the universe to be 15 billion years (15x10^9 a) then the age of the universe in seconds is 4.7x10^17 s.

That means that it would take 1.6x10^16 times the age of the universe to move through the door and diffract. This is an enormous period of time.

------------------
"All is number" - Some mathematician who's name I can't remember.

edit: i cant quote for s#!t

This message has been edited by solid on January 15, 2001 at 07:51 PM

starting PhD this year...

------------------
"All is number" - Some mathematician who's name I can't remember.

the truth is, nobody really understands why light behaves the way it does. theories abound, but nobody can really back anything up as to what happens to particles accelerated to the speed of light, because it can't be done.

we know by observing black holes that light can behave as if it is a mass, since the gravitational field of a black hole can pull in even light. this is most commonly observed by pairs of stars that are situated relatively close together. one becomes a black hole, and we see it 'suck in' the light of the other.

all other things aside, in this instance we would have to say that light has mass, else gravity could not affect it. however, light is energy, it has no mass. so photons, those little quantized packets of energy, obviously behave like matter at some point. but why don't they weigh anything?

if they did, everything that absorbs photons (like a black cloth in the sun) would 'weigh more' as it absorbs more photons. except it doesn't. and if light were a massless wave, it would not be affected by gravity. except it is.

more over, the existence of multiple universes or a multiverse is supported by evidence in other areas. for example, black holes. we know of them as singularities. infinitely collapsing balls of matter that continue to fall in on themselves forever, becoming more and more dense. ok, that's great. except that singularity is a pretty weird concept. everything has it's opposite, up from down, light from dark, positive and negative.

so where are the white holes? where are the things that expand constantly, becoming less and less dense? theory: universes.

another one can be done with simple quadratic equations. we all did them in algebra, and we all solved ones in which the "answer" was a negative square and we were told to just 'throw that one out.' imaginary numbers are nice and all, but they don't exist. right. except that mathematics, done correctly, doesn't produce wrong answers. so negative squares exist, and they do complete that equation, somewhere. just not in our known universe. we don't know of a place where there is a number that when squared = -1. really though, higher math shows us that imaginary numbers are just another dimension of a number. that all numbers have a real and imaginary component, and that most of the numbers we deal with have '0' as their imaginary component, so we only see a one dimensional number that sits on a line.

nice, except that somewhere else, there are those numbers that don't fit on the line. the ones that must be described as a point in a plane. a two dimensional number. 2+3i, and such.

these numbers don't fit into a 3 dimensional universe, but they do fit in somewhere. another universe? maybe.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by solid:
1. Why do we exist
2. What's the higher goal in being here
3. Deja Vu. Why can you somewhat see the future, and why not be able to change it.

---

K, you might want to take this with a grain of salt. Or maybe not. Btw this will only answer questions 1 and 2.

Although the Earth appears to have a population of approximately 6 billion the truth is the actualy number of sentient beings is unkown, but rumored to be in the region of about 100-200k or thereabouts. The unintelligeble babble and meaningless incoherency of overwhelming majority of the populace are best explained with a theory known as 'sentientism'. Essentially, the Earth is controlled by some outer-power (aliens,god, whatever) who are/is experimenting with a new species of sentient beings that they've found (that's us). We're essentially rats in a cage. This explains why so many people exhibit no signs of intelligence whatsoever (seriously, try having a conversation with some of the 'average' people in one of your classes about an intelligent subject. You'd be surprised how convincing this 'joke' theory can be). They no doubt exist soley for the reason of provoking reaction to the sentient beings that live on the Earth (similar to what our scientists do to animals, albeit on a substantially higher level) in order for the 'outer-power' to study us.

Though this may not explain the 'higher purpose' or reasons for existing outside of the sphere of our own world, it does explain a lot about how 'evolution' produced a race of six billion idiots and a few persons exhibiting intelligence. I suppose our goal would be to escape, though it seems unlikely that we'll succeed.

Maybe I should get off detnet and get back to work...

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
the truth is, nobody really understands why light behaves the way it does.

---

You could say that again. When it gets down to the nitty gritty, the best answer anyone can come up with is "because".

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
all other things aside, in this instance we would have to say that light has mass, else gravity could not affect it. however, light is energy, it has no mass. so photons, those little quantized packets of energy, obviously behave like matter at some point. but why don't they weigh anything?

---

You are forgeting a fairly famous equation proposed by our friend Einstein, E=mc^2. Although photons have a zero rest mass, they have a mass equivelent due to their energy. That aside, the presence of matter warps the fabric of space-time (mmm cliche). Light always travels in a straight line - as defined by space. If space itself is bent, then the path that the photon follows will appear to bend as well. This was shown in about 1918 when there was a total eclipse of the sun and the position of some stars seem to have been moved. The light from the star passes by the sun, and they are bent due to the warpage of space. This was the first proof of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
everything that absorbs photons (like a black cloth in the sun) would 'weigh more' as it absorbs more photons. except it doesn't.

---

The energy absorbed in the visible spectrum is re-emitted as heat in the infrared. That is why black things get hot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
for example, black holes. we know of them as singularities. infinitely collapsing balls of matter that continue to fall in on themselves forever, becoming more and more dense. ok, that's great. except that singularity is a pretty weird concept.

---

Physicists don't like singularities. We hate all things to do with infinity. Singularities are a wierd concept because the laws of physics, as we know them, cannot be applied to them. Although, that doesn't stop people from trying...

One such thing that has been proven (as much as anything can be proven in science) is the existance of Hawking radiation. This is where a black hole emits radiation. Conventional analysis of black hole physics says that this is impossible. Stephen Hawking showed that it is possible. A vacuum is not totally empty. It consists of lots of particles spontaneously appearing, as pairs, ie positron/electron, and then disappearing before the rest of the universe notices. If one of these pairs happens to appear right at the event horizon of a black hole, one of the particles will be sucked in, and the other will be left on its own, free to interact with the rest of the universe. So for all intents and purposes, the black hole has emitted some radiation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
so where are the white holes? where are the things that expand constantly, becoming less and less dense? theory: universes.

---

People are looking for white holes, but I don't know much about any of the results. As for 'expanding constantly' that depends on the Hubble constant. There is some evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. This seems to confirm one of Einstien's hunches that gravity can push as well as pull. But this work is still in progress...

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
another one can be done with simple quadratic equations. we all did them in algebra, and we all solved ones in which the "answer" was a negative square and we were told to just 'throw that one out.' imaginary numbers are nice and all, but they don't exist. right. except that mathematics, done correctly, doesn't produce wrong answers. so negative squares exist, and they do complete that equation, somewhere. just not in our known universe. we don't know of a place where there is a number that when squared = -1. really though, higher math shows us that imaginary numbers are just another dimension of a number. that all numbers have a real and imaginary component, and that most of the numbers we deal with have '0' as their imaginary component, so we only see a one dimensional number that sits on a line.

nice, except that somewhere else, there are those numbers that don't fit on the line. the ones that must be described as a point in a plane. a two dimensional number. 2+3i, and such.

these numbers don't fit into a 3 dimensional universe, but they do fit in somewhere. another universe? maybe.

---

Using your arguement, negative numbers cannot exist. Can I hold -3 apples in my hand? No, I can't. Back in Pythagoros' time, he executed a student for suggesting that irrational numbers exist, that is numbers that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers.

And yes, we do know of a place were a number square equals -1. It is this universe. i^2=-1.

The base numbers are the integers. These are ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3... From these numbers we construct the rational numbers, which are ratios of the integers eg 2.5, 104.7, 1/3 etc. We must then construct the irrational numbers, numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of integers. eg sqrt(2), pi, e etc..
All of these numbers are known as the real numbers. After this, we need to construct the imaginary numbers. With all of these numbers, so far we can solve all equations.

The plane that you refer to is known as the Argand plane. The real axis run from -ve infinity on the left, through zero, to +ve infinity on the right. The imaginary axis runs from -ve infinity*i at the bottom, intersects the real axis at zero, and goes up to +ve infinity*i at the top.

I think that sounds coherent.

Note to solid, I found his name, see below...

edit: grammar, spelling and a couple of additional points
------------------
"All is number" - Pythagoras

This message has been edited by masher on January 15, 2001 at 09:09 PM

as far as the einstein equation, did you also know that the equation you quoted has NOTHING to do with light being matter?

ALL energy is mass*velocity^2. it's just that in the case of DIRECT conversion of matter -> energy, you use the speed of light. einstein also figured out that his equation wasn't entirely correct, something which bothered him immensely, because he hated having to use a 'fudge factor.'

thus, there's no real mass equivalent of a photon, because nobody can actually measure a photon as a photon. we have to wait till it hits something to determine where it is and how big it is, which means we've already altered the speed of it, so it's not really traveling at c anymore. heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies here.

moreover, every scientist knows that a vaccuum is not entirely empty. 'empty space' is not empty at all, and while the 'infinite expansion' of anything cannot be proven because we lack the ability to measure a signifcant enough period of time. also, time doesn't exist. the only thing differentiating time is 'now' and an 'instant from now.' it's the property of things not happening all at once. space and time are really one and the same thing, which like all of quantum physics, nobody really understands it (neils bohr pointed that out.)

the bottom line is that we probably never will understand all of quantum physics because we live inside it. the simplest law of physics is that you can't understand a system you're part of. so obviously understanding the universe is a futile thing, and even fully understanding man is a futile thing.

so why are we here?
heh. human beings don't deal well with this, because it's in our nature to ask 'why?' all the time. but hey, maybe we have to accept the fact that there is no 'why'. at least, not one that will ever be understood by the participants in the system they're tryin to study.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

"Planke's constant is neither.. haw... haw... haw"
- Stephen Hawking on Simpsons

Space time is not actually four-dimensional, as we assume, it's actually either 10- or 11-dimensional, with the extra 6 or 7 dimensions curled up really small so we can't see them. What we call "particles" are actually tiny 1-dimensional strings or higher-dimensional membranes resonating at different wavelengths, with each distinct resonation producing a different elementary particle. And matter can't shrink to a point, because the possible quantum paths of all those strings wrapped around space keep it from shrinking to a size smaller than the Plank size. But that doesn't keep space from tearing and re-forming in wormholes and the like.

Yes, it supposedly is a "Theory of Everything" but it's also, in my opinion, even less intuitive than quantum mechanics, and so complicated that no one even knows how to do the math involved directly. Yes, it is a very promising theory, but they're going to have to simplify it a lot before it can really be useful.

quote:

---

as far as the einstein equation, did you also know that the equation you quoted has NOTHING to do with light being matter?

ALL energy is mass*velocity^2. it's just that in the case of DIRECT conversion of matter -> energy, you use the speed of light. einstein also figured out that his equation wasn't entirely correct, something which bothered him immensely, because he hated having to use a 'fudge factor.'

---

It has everything to do with it. What is light but energy? And what is energy but an alternative expression of mass? Also Einstein’s ‘fudge factor’ was nothing to do with E=mc^2. It had to do with his equations that govern the expansion of the universe. His equations implied that the universe was expanding. In his time, the entire known universe was just the milky way, and our galaxy is too small to observe any expansion. Therefore he put in his fudge factor to negate the expansion put there by his equations. When the rest of the universe was discovered, and the expansion was shown to be true, he called his use of the fudge his greatest error

quote:

---

thus, there's no real mass equivalent of a photon, because nobody can actually measure a photon as a photon. we have to wait till it hits something to determine where it is and how big it is, which means we've already altered the speed of it, so it's not really traveling at c anymore. heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies here.

---

You can measure the wavelength of a photon to extreme accuracy. This measurement spreads out the position of the photon, so you just don’t know where it is – this is the uncertainty principle. It can be shown that the momentum of a photon is given by p=E/c, where E is the photon energy and c is the speed of light. The energy of the photon is given by E=hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the photon frequency. If we plug all the numbers into the equations, we get a value for the momentum of a photon. Now, to have momentum, a body must have mass. As the photon has a zero rest mass, the mass is a mass equivalent.

quote:

---

moreover, every scientist knows that a vaccuum is not entirely empty. 'empty space' is not empty at all, and while the 'infinite expansion' of anything cannot be proven because we lack the ability to measure a signifcant enough period of time. also, time doesn't exist. the only thing differentiating time is 'now' and an 'instant from now.' it's the property of things not happening all at once. space and time are really one and the same thing, which like all of quantum physics, nobody really understands it (neils bohr pointed that out.)

---

We can measure a long enough period of time just by measuring galaxies at different distances from our own. The problem lies in the errors associated with the measurements. Time does exist. Its length is relative, according to the Theory of Relativty. It can also only run in one direction, according to one of the laws of thermodynamics (I think it’s the 2nd)

quote:

---

the bottom line is that we probably never will understand all of quantum physics because we live inside it. the simplest law of physics is that you can't understand a system you're part of. so obviously understanding the universe is a futile thing, and even fully understanding man is a futile thing.

---

I would have to agree with you here to a certain extent. The mere act of observation disrupts the system being observed. But that aside, it doesn’t mean that we are incapable of understanding it. It is just the level of understanding that you wish to gain. At the base level, the answer is always going to be ‘because’.

quote:

---

so why are we here?
heh. human beings don't deal well with this, because it's in our nature to ask 'why?' all the time. but hey, maybe we have to accept the fact that there is no 'why'. at least, not one that will ever be understood by the participants in the system they're tryin to study.

---

This is where some people invoke the anthropic principle. We are here because a whole bunch of variables got the right values. Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant etc.. We exist to observe the universe around us. This principle was used by Fred Hoyle to show that a certain type of reaction inside stars involving carbon existed. His reasoning was that if the cycle didn’t exist, neither would we. It was later shown to be true.

------------------
"All is number" - Pythagoras

STFU KURU AND MASHER U ARE MAKING MY BREAIN CAVE IN

how the flying fuck are any of us supposed to understand what the hell you guys are talking about?? goddam i wish i was smart enough to grasp all that. you ppl are freaks

the only thing i have to add to this discussion is on the 'multiverse' thing. i personally prefer Piers Anthony's word for the eternity of alternates - Alternity

------------------
"I didnt know cows had boobs, I just thought they had that big nutsack with all the wieners hanging off it" - Beavis

Metal/Electronic/Ambient etc..
< http://www.mp3.com/fatbitch >

heh :)

the only way you know how far a galaxy is from our own is by using LIGHT to measure it, in order to prove the assumptions you made about LIGHT.

you also have to assume a time which the galaxy was not that far away, and that you knew where it was then, and how long it took to get where it is.

all of these things are assumptions. and while they do make pretty little equations that all prove each other, they're still circular logic, because you're proving the thing you're looking for using the thing you're proving.

it's like this: you can't use the word you're trying to define in that word.

now you can quote equations all day long, but the bottom line comes down to the fact that you are trying to prove things about photons by using equations that make assumptions about photons.

there is NO experimental data to back /any/ of it up.

einstein fudged a lot of his theories. and remember, relativity is still a THEORY. it's never been proven (or rather, there's never been a concrete lack of disproof shown), and there probably never will be, because EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.

an observer cannot understand fully a system which he is part of.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

------------------
Leaving the trees was a bad idea.
< TeamWolfguard.com >

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
einstein fudged a lot of his theories. and remember, relativity is still a THEORY. it's never been proven (or rather, there's never been a concrete lack of disproof shown), and there probably never will be, because EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.

---

Well, except that relativity has indeed been proven many times. With starlight bending around the sun, as mentioned before. With atomic clocks, one on the ground, one flying in a plane for days until, when the clock comes back down, a time difference is indeed observed. With similar clocks placed into orbit to show the effects of a gravitational field on time. Yes, relativity contradicts Newtonian physics, just as quantum mechanics contradicts relativity and string theory contradicts common sense.

quote:

---

an observer cannot understand fully a system which he is part of.

---

I agree with you here. Certainly, science can come very close to telling us _how_ the universe works, but we're still no closer to knowing _why_ it works that way, why it is that, as if by accident, all the variables lined up in just the right way to allow life as we know it, or even planets and suns, to evolve.

The anthropic principle doesn't really tell us this either, for whoever brought that up - it just sort of says that there is no "why" and the answer is simply "because," which isn't very enlightening.

I've done it quite a lot and just wanted to compare notes. eg: One occasion with my friends I stopped saying something harmless that I KNEW would make everyone laugh. When it came to the moment to say it, it was actually difficult not to say it. What was really weird was that we had one of those 'uncomfortable' silences at the moment I 'should' have said it. Really odd as it was quite a few of us and we ALWAYS have something to say. (usually total shit) It's like someone forgot a line in a script or something. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

------------------
--Jynx

We do not make software "releases" -- our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of desginers and quality assurance people in it's wake...

so its not really precognition, its procognition of the past?

I think one time thought I did EXACTLY what your saying... but itstead of saying what I was supposed to say said, "Hey... this is weird..." But then again, mabey I already said the thing and then thought it was weird and then said that... can't remember exactly...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

From kuru:
einstein fudged a lot of his theories. and remember, relativity is still a THEORY. it's never been proven (or rather, there's never been a concrete lack of disproof shown), and there probably never will be, because EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.

---

In addition to what Micheal has said, Einstein's theory also predicts the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, and for that matter all of the planets. It was observed that the perihelion of Mercury was moving by 43 arcseconds a century. Newton's theory og gravitation is unable to show that this should happen. This motion falls out of Einstein's equations. The perihelion moves for all planets, its just that the orbits are so much bigger, and so much closer to a circle than Mercury's, that the movement is impossible to detect experimentally.

Also, the redshift of galaxies is a result of the Theory of Relativity.
"An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated."

This, as well as Micheal's reply, is a summary of appendix III of the 15th edition of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory." My copy is part of the Great Books published as part of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

Have a read for yourself...

quote:

---

EVERYTHING we've discussed here violates the simplest rule of physics.

---

The reason that it violate the simplest rules, is because the simplest rules are wrong. If you want to do a proper calculation, you must use quantum theory, or relativity, or some such other 'higher order' physics. But for most applications, Newton's laws (or the other applicable 'simplest' rules) will work.

This, in quantum theory, is known as the Correspondence Principle. First off, all laws pertaining to quantum systems are equally applicable to macro systems, its just that the equations are so hard to solve that the classical equations previsouly discovered solve the system just as well as the quantum ones. Basically, this is the correspondence principle.

or "Quantum mechanics is in agreement with classical mechanics when the difference between quantum levels vanishes"

------------------
"All is number" - Pythagoras

edit: added last arguement...

This message has been edited by masher on January 16, 2001 at 07:47 PM

see, we can't entirely accurately measure the motion of the solar system because we're IN IT and also moving. ok?

so you can have all kind of nice theories and they can describe WHAT YOU SEE. but whether or not they describe ACTUAL REALITY is a different matter.

as far as deja vu, i tend to get it most often as the procognition of events, except that i can turn and then almost always accurately predict what will happen next.

for example: walking in to work one day seeing the convict crew cleaning the building for the first time, knowing i had see the bright red "DOC" t-shirts in this building before and then being able to accurately remember before he told me that my boss was going to tell me his wife was in a car accident yesterday after work.

creepy.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

------------------
Random giberish etc. etc.

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

the heisenberg uncertainty priciple is neither here nor there with planetary motion the fact that most things are so far away makes little difference to a few picometres of uncertainty of its location. the fact is physics aint about knowing exactly how evething works cos that aint possible if you know anything about it then you'll know that its all about using the available information. what it is is a way of predicting a certain outcome with a particular degrre of uncertainty.

oh and yes as metioned relativity is proven einstein's theory's aren't rubbish they just get updated to more accuracy.

newton->einstein->hawking->ME! ( I AM THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!)

------------------
Random giberish etc. etc.

my sister told me something funny (but stupid) yesterday: Deja Vu and Amnesia combined - I think i've forgotten this before

i know, lame, but i bet it made u smile (if you havn't heard it b4)

anyway.... thats all i have to add to this genius discussion so i'll just sit back and try to grasp what you guys are talking about

everyone bow down!

(sorry guys im sleepy)

then i have to beat their asses. or something.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

This message has been edited by PersonGuy on January 18, 2001 at 07:59 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyPete:
I have had the 'regular' version of Deja-Vu, but what I'm referring to seems to be a 'premium' version of it. It's so strong that you can actually predict what will be said four or five comments before the fact. You actually have time to compose yourself and get over the fact that it's weird before you respond. I have told others that I've had Deja-Vu and that's not elicited much reaction but when I actively try and change (?) what's meant to happen, it gets trippy.
I just wish I could refine it and use it for the lottery.....

---

ive had the regular deja vu 4 times in less than 30 seconds. every time i got weirded out and by the third time i was complaining how inconveniant it was interrupting my conversations and all.