Thread: Philosophy

love is like communism, it only looks good on paper.

No0bs should learn to EDIT!!!!
Double posting sucks

I will read Norgs post later, and maybe even comment on it, but at the moment, reading anything that long on a computer screen would make me homicidal, so I will refrain for the moment.

I'll be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire thing, but I did read most of it and will now comment on two parts that caught my attention...

Originally Posted by Masterful_Norg

This works out such that if I travel to the galaxy of andromeda at ninety-nine point (insert an arbetrarily large amount of nines here) percent of the speed of light, I can reach andromeda from my perspective almost instantaneously while everone else on earth experiences 3000 years (as the distance between earth and the galaxy andromeda is 3000 light years).

This is blatantly wrong. You flat-out contradicted yourself. (I'm not saying this in an attempt to offend you, just to make sure that no one reads and believes this. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part.) Travelling at a fraction of the speed of light, even a very high one, will not get you to Andromeda in less time than it takes light to reach it. No way.

From what I recall from math class a month or so ago, if you travelled to Andromeda and back at the speed of light a million years would have passed on Earth. No guarantees on it being exactly that number, since my math professor actually teaches that course and was just exaplaining this in simplified terms for interest's sake.

Originally Posted by Masterful_Norg

However all that can really be said to exist is a big bundle of interactions or exchanges between descrete peices of nothing that have no verifiable existance themselves (and certainly no static existance in any frozen moment). (In quantum mechanics this is taken in stride, but this explanation given here requires no lab apparatus).

It doesn't take any lab apparatus at all to understand this, actually. Are you familiar with Schrodinger's cat?

As for my own contribution...not being religious myself, I will refrain from commenting on God. I just don't know enough to have an in-depth discussion about it. The mathematical proof of God, however, is as follows: when you take De Moivre's theorum, e^[i(theta)] = cos(theta) + (i)sin(theta), (where i is the square root of negative one, and theta is some number or angle)and when you substitute pi for theta, it simplifies to: e^[i(pi)] + 1 = 0. Now that's crazy.

Another point of interest would be the Divine Proportion. It's a ratio that shows up everywhere...Fibonacci's rabbit population growth calculation, the lengths of various parts of a star inside a circle, the human body, etc. Apparently it was used a lot in (old) construction. The ratio is: x = [1 + 5^(1/2)]/2.

And then there's Darwin's theory of evolution. Personally, I believe in natural selection and adaptability. I believe it's, in part, the ability to adapt so well that raises humans above other species. I'm still not sold on other parts of his theory, though.

Edit - Okay, now I've finished reading all of it.

Originally Posted by Masterful_Norg

And there have been several stellar (astronomical (star related)) observations that show light acting in a fashion that ascribes more to explanation in terms of classical physics.

I haven't heard about this at all. (Read: share in some more detail, I'm interested.) What I've learned about light so far is that it behaves as both particles and a wave, and I'm not sure what classical physics theory you're referring to.

I agree entirely about Einstein. The photoelectric effect was huge. And I also like your thinking on observation. My one quibble:

Originally Posted by Masterful_Norg

Physical Laws are limited by their "assumptions", but the assumptions are so numerous for any given law that the law only describes situations in which all variables are defined, or in otherwords "in hypothetical situations only".

Not exactly. In Physics a lot of what is studied are "ideal" situations. The laws themselves are true, we just neglect some outside factors for the sake of teaching students the concept and how to solve that type of problem. I think the law people are going to be the most familiar with on here is Newton's "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." In an example using equilibrium, this means that all of the forces acting on a body must be balanced in order for equilibrium to be maintained. I fail to see how this can be argued. If the forces are unbalanced, the body will move and equilibrium will be lost.

As for the accuracy of the equations, at higher levels the correction terms are introduced that ensure this: the fudge factors and uncertainty equations and calculations. (Such as no longer neglecting the impact of air friction on a projectile, although I haven't actually had to do that yet.)

I have to apologise about the wrong data i have inputed in this here discussion. Norg really took time to explain relativity, though I thinkn he was too scientific for some poeple. If you do not have the physics basis, then some things just don't make sense. But... Well done Norg.

An observetion here. A wise man once said about physics and chemistry "A theory full of errors is rejected by a new one that is ever more wrong." If you remember who it was please tell me. Anyway, modern scientists are trying to explain things through observations. That limits our ability to make a subjective theory.

Cogito ergo sum!

Originally Posted by Masterful_Norg

(The following is long)

On relativity:

The theory of general relatively supposes that space and time become warped (as when a ball rests on the surface of a rubber sheet) in the presence of matter to create the effect of gravity by curving the paths of objects moving through the space under consideration.

The theory of special relativity supposes that time dilation (a shortening of the time experienced by a moving object in relation to a slower moving reference frame (such as the earth)), lorentz contraction (a shortening of the moving object's length in the direction of travel), and mass inflation (the increase in the moving object's mass) all occur such to the extent that it is impossible to excellerate past the speed of light, either the moving object in question itself or a bullet (or any projectile) fired from the object in the direction of travel. It also means that even if we are traveling near the speed of light it will appear as though light shone from either the front or back of the traveling object is moving at the speed of light if the object is used as a "fixed" reference (ie no apparent change in the velocity of light).

In the circumstance of special relativity we imagine a train moving very near the speed of light. If special relativity is correct then the whole train will become shorter as will the observers in the train in the dimension (direction) of travel. Because our eyes have also contracted in preportion to the train we will not be able to determine the difference using our senses (so the train seems to be the same length). This creates the effect that when we shine a flashlight toward the front of the train, the train is in actuallity short enough so that the light (limited to travel at the speed of light) hits the wall in what appears to be the same amount of time and over the same distance (when in reality the light had a much shorter distance to travel) as when the train is actually at rest.

Mass inflation occurs such that as the object aproaches the speed of light the object's mass approaches infinity and the amount of energy needed to accelerate the vehicle also approaches infinity.

The time dilation equation is as follows:

t= to/(1-((v^2)/(c^2)))^(1/2)

or,

"Time experienced by the stationary observers is equal to time experienced by the travelers devided by the square root of 1 minus the velocity of the travelers squared devided by the speed of light squared".

If "v" equals an insignificantly smaller velocity than "c" then "t" becomes a value insignificantly smaller than infinity.

This works out such that if I travel to the galaxy of andromeda at ninety-nine point (insert an arbetrarily large amount of nines here) percent of the speed of light, I can reach andromeda from my perspective almost instantaneously while everone else on earth experiences 3000 years (as the distance between earth and the galaxy andromeda is 3000 light years).

Keep in mind, however, that the theory of general relativity is not even a real theory. For it "assumes" that there are no circumstances under which the speed of light can be exceeded and then invokes various phenomena to make it so.

Lorentz contraction is something that has been observed to occur in electrons. However, there is no observation that supports the phenomenon ever occuring with macroscopic objects. The experiment involving two planes flying in opposite directions around the earth is also questionable. One must ask "was the difference in time recorded by the two onboard atomic clocks, as a result of a variation in the passage of time, or as a result of the effect of the earth's gravitational field on the rate of oscilation (vibration) of the cesium atoms in the atomic clock?". Such vibration is known to be variable under influence of fields that enact forces.

There is also nothing gained from the knowledge of the GPS industry that doesn't refute relativity. And there have been several stellar (astronomical (star related)) observations that show light acting in a fashion that ascribes more to explanation in terms of classical physics.

Having said that it should also be taken into account that while Einstein is most declerated for his theories of relativity, the theories haven't helped humanity build or develope anything as a result. Therefore, it is odd that Einstein is not more renowned for his work in Brownian motion or the photoelectric effect.

Additionally, it should be recognized that Einstein was not awarded a Nobel Prize for the theories of relativity because the Michelson-Morley experiment to probe the existance of an ether never acheived a completely null result (ie "no ether to speak of"), and that experiments related to the detection of an ether continued from that point on with success under the direction of Dayton Miller. (Take note that the existance of an ether and the theory of relativity are mutually exclusive (undermine each other)).

[Insert long pause here]

On "Je pense donc Je suis":

The way I see it, it is not by the act of thinking that I exist but by the act of simply being aware (either of thinking or not thinking) that I exist.

And as long as we're philosophising (sp?):

Someone said earlier that nothing really ever touches (particles never come into physical contact). I'd like to expand on it a little.

I would like to propose (quantum physics aside) that the only things that exist (or that can be said to exist) are interactions. I like to explain it by supposing that you have a microscope through which you can see the image of something like a proton or quark (or whatever elementary particle, whether theoretical or not, that you desire). When you look through the microscope you are actually seeing the light that is scattered by the particle (though in the case of anything smaller than an atom, this event has not been engineered (so far)). However, you're not so much seeing the light that is scattered by the particle as much as you are experiencing a chain of reactions that occurs after the light "hits" your retina, stimulating electrical signals (of electrons that move due to a repulsion between them mediated by photons on the "nonvisible" wavelength spectrum emitted by the electrons).

These electrical signals relay themselves to your brain where the least understood interaction of all occurs such that you become aware of having seen something. However all that can really be said to exist is a big bundle of interactions or exchanges between descrete peices of nothing that have no verifiable existance themselves (and certainly no static existance in any frozen moment). (In quantum mechanics this is taken in stride, but this explanation given here requires no lab apparatus).

This may seem all very obvious but it is complementary to the next conclusion. Not only is matter completely insubstantial, so too is time absolutely nothing without events to punctuate the moments that occur throughout it. Even then interactions would have no existance in and of themselves unless there was consciousness. Awareness is therefore more fundamental than space and time or anything else.

It is therefore a wonder why the sciences put so much stress on objectivity (the exclusion of consciousness from having an effect on events) when it is clear that consciousness litterally creates every event. Science also assumes that the universe is governed by laws that function the same way everywhere and everywhen (natural causality (cause and effect) and time space constancy). Why choose a word like "law" when laws only occur within human society and even then can still be violated. It is very much a practice of faith.

Even reason itself is cast into doubt when you realize that there is no preferential reasoning for using reason as it relies on cause and effect which are assumed phenomena. The vehicle that connects what is dubbed the "cause" and "effect" is also assumed to exist.

Physical Laws are limited by their "assumptions", but the assumptions are so numerous for any given law that the law only describes situations in which all variables are defined, or in otherwords "in hypothetical situations only".

Sir Arthur Eddington wrote, "If there is no causality then there is no distinction between the natural and the supernatural".

[Insert second long pause]

On God:

If we define the word "universe" as everything and if god is defined as "all powerful", "all knowing", and perfect then the subsequent definition must follow. As the sum knowing and power of each individual thing in the universe collectively represents "all knowledge" and "all power" then that means that the unverse and god (regardless of religeous orientation) are synonymous. Not only that, but the universe is also "perfect".

If you think about it, is the universe and thereby reality flawed in some respect? Is reality somehow less real in comparison to some external "everything that exists"? Obviously the universe perfectly matches the definition we gave it. "Everything that exists" is "everything that exists". This is also refered to as "the Tao". Any attempt to define anything beyond this point is pure speculation and can never be anything more than speculation in principle. Anything that we define will exist as a definition, but it may not coincide with that which we have chosen to be the object of definition, especially when that object is an abstract concept.

gotta love wikipedia XD

Originally Posted by Kuroryu

gotta love wikipedia XD

I wondered when someone was going to say that.