# Take everything you know about the universe and throw it out..



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

Einsten said "The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education"..

I am a space fanatic I suppose. I  space games and watch every science channel special, I can sink my teeth into. I'm no genius by any means, but I don't think it takes a genius, to realize how little you know..lol

Ever notice how many times scientists say " the world may never know", or "we think"?.. It's because the truth is simply, they do not know. I don't blame them for that. On the contrary, I commend them for trying.

But when it comes to the universe and all of the insanely incredible things, we can do within it. Don't write anything off I say..
White holes, black holes, worm holes, space-time, gravity, exploration, quantum physics.. The possibilities are endless. 
Unless we don't figure out the big rip.."If that's even real" Then maybe not so much endless..lol..

*PS: Let's try to stay off, the religious topic, please.*


----------



## W1zzard (May 3, 2012)

D007 said:


> and watch every science channel special



http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,s,Fall_2011,2AC754AEB6E21150

no pretty animations, but tons of astrophysics content that's more advanced than what you get on tv. you'll learn that we know A LOT already

if you fall in love with video lectures then watch physics c10 (aka physics for future presidents) by jacobsen or muller, also at berkeley.


----------



## Kreij (May 3, 2012)

Did it ever occur to you, D007, that the scientists, W1zz and the rest of us really do know what's up, but we're not telling you so you can happily start threads like this that we can discuss things in?


----------



## white phantom (May 3, 2012)

D007 said:


> White holes, black holes



there my fave holes


----------



## the54thvoid (May 3, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Did it ever occur to you, D007, that the scientists, W1zz and the rest of us really do know what's up, but we're not telling you so you can happily start threads like this that we can discuss things in?



Shhhh!


----------



## erocker (May 3, 2012)

Which one is real?
Warp








Hyper








Starburst








FTL








Wormhole/jumpgate








Stargate?


----------



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,s,Fall_2011,2AC754AEB6E21150
> 
> no pretty animations, but tons of astrophysics content that's more advanced than what you get on tv. you'll learn that we know A LOT already
> 
> if you fall in love with video lectures then watch physics c10 (aka physics for future presidents) by jacobsen or muller, also at berkeley.



Ooh this could get interesting. thank you. 
We "know" a lot, but we "assume" a lot more..lol
Like the hicks particle and dark matter for example..



white phantom said:


> there my fave holes



Lol.. what else can I say?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 3, 2012)

I threw everything I knew about the universe out the first time I dropped acid.

Science needs to drop more acid.

They spend their whole lives trying to see things from another view when its a "strawberry" away.


----------



## qubit (May 3, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Did it ever occur to you, D007, that the scientists, W1zz and the rest of us really do know what's up, but we're not telling you so you can happily start threads like this that we can discuss things in?



I knew it, a conspiracy!

_<qubit furiously puts on his tin foil hat>_


----------



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

erocker said:


> Which one is real?



Bah I can't see that at work. Or are they all really just white boxes? lol..
Newtwork settings ftl..



Kreij said:


> Did it ever occur to you, D007, that the scientists, W1zz and the rest of us really do know what's up, but we're not telling you so you can happily start threads like this that we can discuss things in?



Now it has...You guys and your flops and bytes.. Always making things go boom..


----------



## erocker (May 3, 2012)

D007 said:


> Bah I can't see that at work. Or are they all really just white boxes? lol..
> Newtwork settings ftl..



Bummer. To my surpise they all actually work!


----------



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

erocker said:


> Bummer. To my surpise they all actually work!



I'll be home within an hour and I'll be looking for sure. 

Did you know though, that there are currently 2 small galaxies, colliding with the milky way galaxy? tis true..


----------



## Bow (May 3, 2012)

Thats why they call themselves theoretical physicists


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 3, 2012)

as someone with the ability to bend space and time, i assure you i know everything and you humans know next to nothing.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2012)

D007 said:


> I'll be home within an hour and I'll be looking for sure.
> 
> Did you know though, that there are currently 2 small galaxies, colliding with the milky way galaxy? tis true..


Yes!

And eventually, Andromeda will collide with us and then we are cooked... if the sun doesnt do it first.. .not sure which will happen first.


----------



## Kreij (May 3, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Science needs to drop more acid.



Microsoft tried that ... we got Windows ME.


----------



## Drone (May 3, 2012)

It's funny to live in a world of branes and 10D reality when your universe is just one of 10^500 other universes which are not further than 10^-35 cm away. That would mean that you have all been fooled all the time.


----------



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Yes!
> 
> And eventually, Andromeda will collide with us and then we are cooked... if the sun doesnt do it first.. .not sure which will happen first.



Be one hell of a firerworks display, that's for sure..



Easy Rhino said:


> as someone with the ability to bend space and time, i assure you i know everything and you humans know next to nothing.



Tell me something I don't know.. 



Kreij said:


> Microsoft tried that ... we got Windows ME.



lmfao.. priceless... ME....


----------



## Kreij (May 3, 2012)

Drone said:


> It's funny to live in a world of branes



I'm not sure if my own brain is in the same brane as my body. It makes it difficult to determine if what I'm seeing is an inter-dimensional distortion effect or just a bad TV commercial.


----------



## D007 (May 3, 2012)

erocker said:


> Which one is real?



Currently none..lol.. 
Well I should rephrase that. None we know about to my knowledge.
Lol typical scientific disclaimer there..

Which is more feasible? I say the worm hole and jump gate. "faster than light" I think is impossible. Warping gravity to create a bridge I think is feasible..
Idk some things just sit right with me.. Faster than light seems fraught with issues.
What the hell do I know though? Wormhole jumping seems fraught with issues as well..lol

We already know, gravity distorts space-time and we have proof. 
To those who don't know. Watching a star pass behind a massive object, creates a lensing effect. The light of that star becomes stretched and distorted. Proving gravity's "warping" effect, even on light.

On that note: Time for some science channel and to look up those things Wizz posted. 
I have a feeling my brain is about to explode.. I won't even understand the intro credits..lol..


----------



## Drone (May 3, 2012)

D007 said:


> The light of that star becomes stretched and distorted. Proving gravity's "warping" effect, even on light.



No. Gravity does not stretch/distort light. It distorts light's path. And light just travels its geodesic line without even knowing that its route has been altered.


----------



## D4S4 (May 3, 2012)

erocker said:


> Which one is real?
> Warp



i pick this one - alcubierre drive.


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2012)

space-time is a kludge because Einstein was too lazy to do make a true Machian, timeless shape dynamics of space.   Space is indeed curved, but not by time.  

This space-time bullshit is one of the biggest barriers to combining relativity and quantum physics and has probably set modern physics back at least 50 years.  But this is a bit off topic.

If we have learned anything from quantum mechanics, it is that the universe is FAR stranger than we can imagine.  Can anyone here really imagine an electron occupying EVERY position around a proton in a hydrogen atom simultaneously?  Think about that.  It is everywhere AND nowhere at the same time.  And that is only a fairly gentle mind bender.  On the QM ordnance scale, we could call that a .22 derringer.  It fucks with your head but probably won't give you a migraine.  Now let's talk about superposition and entanglement or quantum teleportation.  And these are just things we've managed to figure out so far - or at least, the things we THINK we've figured out.

You might want to look into a little something called Bell's theorem.  It basically says that any theory of QM either has to say that 

a. shit that happens here can affect something on the other side of the universe (non-locality)

or

b. if something isn't observed, you have no idea where it is, or any of its characteristics.  (counter factual definiteness).

Considering the fact that we rely on QM every single day since it is used in chemistry, electronics, etc, etc, that's some weird, fucking shit.  But no one seems to mind - or even know for that matter.


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

twilyth said:


> space-time is a kludge because Einstein was too lazy to do make a true Machian, timeless shape dynamics of space.   Space is indeed curved, but not by time.
> 
> This space-time bullshit is one of the biggest barriers to combining relativity and quantum physics and has probably set modern physics back at least 50 years.  But this is a bit off topic.
> 
> ...



IKR it's totally crazy to think. Oh by the way, this table could just stop existing and I could fall thru the center of the earth, at any given time. QM says that's possible.. Improbable, but possible..lol

I had to disappear a bit. My gpu died on me.. bastard that it is.. Got a 680 otw though. 
Guess the brain in my gpu decided, it didn't want to be "local" anymore...lol


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (May 4, 2012)

erocker said:


> Which one is real?
> Hyper



This one. Why? Because it has the Falcon man.


----------



## Norton (May 4, 2012)

erocker said:


> Which one is real?



None of those- This one is real

*They've gone into plaid*


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

Norton said:


> None of those- This one is real
> 
> *They've gone into plaid*



Lmao.. Why didn't I expect that? I am ashamed..


----------



## Norton (May 4, 2012)

D007 said:


> Lmao.. Why didn't I expect that? I am ashamed..



Couldn't resist  could be true you know... "expect the unexpected"


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2012)

Norton said:


> None of those- This one is real
> 
> *They've gone into plaid*
> [yt]mk7VWcuVOf0/yt]



Sort of related. 

Is space like a chessboard?


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (May 4, 2012)

Norton said:


> None of those- This one is real
> 
> *They've gone into plaid*



 That was a good movie.


----------



## Norton (May 4, 2012)

Back to the topic though- my wonder

If all of the elements in the universe were/are/will be born from the nuclear reactions within stars...

- 
- Is there another reaction in the universe that can produce different forms of matter? Are there dark elements?


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2012)

Norton said:


> Back to the topic though- my wonder
> 
> If all of the elements in the universe were/are/will be born from the nuclear reactions within stars...
> 
> ...


It depends on what dark matter actually is, if it even exists.  It could be a heavy "sterile" neutrino for example.  Or, it could just be the zero point field.


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

Dark matter and dark energy likely.. Both of which are extremely different. Einstein said his "cosmological constant" was his biggest blunder. But it's proving to likely be, one of the biggest discoveries ever..

I fear.. Exponential growth... eesh.. Once dark energy leaves the constrains of dark matter. there will be no opposing force, to slow it down. Therefor the universe will exponentially expand.. Exponentially speeding toward annihilation.. Oh joy..


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2012)

D007 said:


> Dark matter and dark energy likely.. Both of which are extremely different. Einstein said his "cosmological constant" was his biggest blunder. But it's proving to likely be, one of the biggest discoveries ever..
> 
> I fear.. Exponential growth... eesh.. Once dark energy leaves the constrains of dark matter. there will be no opposing force, to slow it down. Therefor the universe will exponentially expand.. Exponentially speeding toward annihilation.. Oh joy..



I can't recall, but I don't think it's a proven fact that 


a) the rate of expansion has been uniform over time.  IOW, the universe has always been expanding.  It's very fabric that is - the zero point field I would assume.  But I don't think the rate of acceleration has been constant.  I just can't think of anything to search on that would let me narrow it down quickly, plus I'm a little typed out.

b) the rate of expansion is uniform.  It may be accelerating, but do we know for a fact that it's accelerating at the same rate everywhere in the universe.  That shouldn't be too hard to test, so I assume this both a and b have already been answered.  Someone else's turn to contribute.

edit:

This might help.  It's old, but from a reputable source.


> The Advanced Camera for Surveys, a new imaging instrument installed on the space telescope in 2002, enabled scientists to turn Hubble into a supernova-hunting machine. Riess led an effort to discover the needed sample of very distant type Ia supernovae by piggybacking on the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. The team found six supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than half its present size (more than seven billion years ago); together with SN 1997ff, these are the most distant type Ia supernovae ever discovered. *The observations confirmed the existence of an early slowdown period and placed the transitional “coasting point” between slowdown and speedup at about five billion years ago. *This finding is consistent with theoretical expectations and thus is reassuring to cosmologists. Cosmic acceleration was a surprise and a new puzzle to solve, but it is not so surprising as to make us rethink much of what we thought we understood about the universe.
> 
> Our Cosmic Destiny
> THE ANCIENT SUPERNOVAE also provided new clues about dark energy, the underlying cause of the cosmic speedup. *The leading candidate to explain dark energy’s effects is vacuum energy, which is mathematically equivalent to the cosmological constant that Einstein invented in 1917. *Because Einstein thought he needed to model a static universe, he introduced his “cosmological fudge factor” to balance the attractive gravity of matter. In this recipe, the constant’s density was half that of matter. But to produce the observed acceleration of the universe, the constant’s density would have to be twice that of matter. Where could this energy density come from? The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics requires that the vacuum be filled with particles living on borrowed time and energy, popping in and out of existence. But when theorists try to compute the energy density associated with the quantum vacuum, they come up with values that are at least 55 orders of magnitude too large. If the vacuum energy density were really that high, all matter in the universe would instantly fly apart and galaxies would never have formed.


----------



## Drone (May 4, 2012)

Norton said:


> Is there another reaction in the universe that can produce different forms of matter? Are there dark elements?



Dark matter is normal matter's superpartner. It's the same reaction.


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

An example of the "we don't know as much as we'd like to think we do"
 statement I make in the title.  

Watching a special right now and the scientist says "To have complex life, like we have on earth, you need oxygen".. ugh.. As if something couldn't simply learn to convert, another gas into fuel, in the same manner.. 

Dark elements.. Idk, I kind of think of dark matter and dark energy as dark elements. As they were theoretically created, in the very first moment, of the big bang. Where as most complex elements, were made in stars after wards.


----------



## NinkobEi (May 4, 2012)

D007 said:


> Like the hicks particle and dark matter for example..


If no one else is going to say it..
Tell me you did not just call the 'higgs boson' a 'hicks particle' lol


----------



## Kreij (May 4, 2012)

D007 said:


> As they were theoretically created, in the very first moment, of the big bang.



I'm still trying to figure out what went "bang", and where did whatever went "bang" come from?


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 4, 2012)

No perceptual insight here all I have to say is that Earth is definitely flat.

@Kreij

Pretty sure it was a supernova don't take my word for it though, I wasn't around back then


----------



## Drone (May 4, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:
			
		

> Earth is definitely flat.


Entire Universe is flat. If holographic principle and string theory are right.


----------



## Kreij (May 4, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> Pretty sure it was a supernova



What went supernova before the universe existed? 
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm all for theories, but when there is a huge hole in the theory it presents a bit of a problem.

Such as ...






lol


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

NinkobEi said:


> If no one else is going to say it..
> Tell me you did not just call the 'higgs boson' a 'hicks particle' lol



Everyone knows Hicks is the awesome one.. lol.
I always call it that.. Never saw Aliens?
Hicks kicks ass! HIggs boson.. that better?


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 4, 2012)

Kreij said:


> What went supernova before the universe existed?



That's why I said it ...... LMAO


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> That's why I said it ...... LMAO



IKR.. It's funny because it makes no sense when you think about it.. It wasnt "BIG" It was infinitely small. And it wasn't a bang. There is no sound in space..lol..

I think God just poked the tip of his finger into a puddle and wala..
or something....lol..

and Lol Kreij..  that picture.. Maybe a little more effort for step two.. lol... perfect..



Norton said:


> Back to the topic though- my wonder
> 
> If all of the elements in the universe were/are/will be born from the nuclear reactions within stars...
> 
> ...



Thinking about that statement. There are tons of possibilities within that train of thought.. I mean if we have all these visible elements.. We may very well, have just as many,  invisible elements. IE "dark" elements.


----------



## Sasqui (May 4, 2012)

Ok, lets dive into philosopy.

We are here because the very matter that the universe is made up of *makes us possible.*  Counter that!

Even if this is us LOLz:


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Ok, lets dive into philosopy.
> 
> We are here because the very matter that the universe is made up of *makes us possible.*  Counter that!
> 
> ...



I'm just glad I look more like the big guy on top, than the fraggles below..lol.. Where r the doozers?
It'd suck to be that small, everything trying to eat you all the time.. Eesh..


----------



## Kreij (May 4, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> We are here because the very matter that the universe is made up of makes us possible. Counter that!



Counter point ! : We are here because without us there is no one to look at the rest of the matter in the universe, thus making its existance of no worth. Therefore the universe exists because of us.

I love this thread. lol


----------



## Sasqui (May 4, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Counter point ! : We are here because without us there is no one to look at the rest of the matter in the universe, thus making its existance of no worth. Therefore the universe exists because of us.
> 
> I love this thread. lol



Yes!  If there is a supernova and no one can see it, did it make light?  LOL!


----------



## Kreij (May 4, 2012)

If prior to the existance of the universe there was nothing but a dark void, and then "nothing" exploded, it would mean that photon were instantaneously created (even though they never existed before) in order to produce light.

So ... following that logic, the big explosion (of nothing) created all kinds of stuff so that the universe could be filled with something to look at.


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Counter point ! : We are here because without us there is no one to look at the rest of the matter in the universe, thus making its existance of no worth. Therefore the universe exists because of us.
> 
> I love this thread. lol



I think you just made my brain hemorage.. Just a little bit... 
Kinda like the "If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, who gives a shit" statement? lol..
Lunch time.


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 4, 2012)

Kreij said:


> If prior to the existance of the universe there was nothing but a dark void, and then "nothing" exploded, it would mean that photon were instantaneously created (even though they never existed before) in order to produce light.
> 
> So ... following that logic, the big explosion (of nothing) created all kinds of stuff so that the universe could be filled with something to look at.



Turns out even Nothing has something. 










"90% of our mass comes from empty space."


----------



## twilyth (May 4, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Turns out even Nothing has something.
> 
> [yt]7ImvlS8PLIo/yt]
> 
> "90% of our mass comes from empty space."



IIRC, the zero point field came into existence with the universe.

However Roger Penrose of Oxford published a paper last year claiming that there are circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background that indicate blackhole predate the big bang.  Didn't we have a thread on that here at some point? Primordial black holes or sumptin


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

twilyth said:


> IIRC, the zero point field came into existence with the universe.
> 
> However Roger Penrose of Oxford published a paper last year claiming that there are circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background that indicate blackhole predate the big bang.  Didn't we have a thread on that here at some point? Primordial black holes or sumptin



OOh I did not know that. Now there is somethign that could create a universe..Maybe it was a white hole, from another dimension, spilling into ours..Who knows, maybe every time a universe has it's "big rip" it pops open another door, in a different universe and tosses it's mass into it..

The paradox of that stamenet being. How can anything "predate" the big bang.. "If" (big if) there was nothing..lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2012)

D007 said:


> OOh I did not know that. Now there is somethign that could create a universe..Maybe it was a white hole, from another dimension, spilling into ours..Who knows, maybe every time a universe has it's "big rip" it pops open another door, in a different universe and tosses it's mass into it..



Thats how my wife got pregnant.


----------



## D007 (May 4, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats how my wife got pregnant.



ROFLS   
I find myself, trying to logically comprehend, how that could "actually" happen. I am in too deep..

It's like the son of a gun myth, on mythbusters..  XD


----------



## Sasqui (May 4, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats how my wife got pregnant.


----------



## Inceptor (May 5, 2012)

D007 said:


> The paradox of that stamenet being. How can anything "predate" the big bang.. "If" (big if) there was nothing..lol



'Predate' is probably not the best word, as anything that occurred outside of the universe we live in is not temporally linked to us, here, in our universe.  But it suffices as a crude explanation.

It all depends on how the universe/multiverse is structured, dimensionally.  And how you interpret it.

If our universe is the result of a 'momentary' collision between two higher dimensional 'branes', which caused the big bang, those are just words, we can't visualize it.  The equations are just 'words', we can't visualize them/encompass them in our minds.  The best we can do is come up with some kind of simple visualization, some _*analogue*_, of what is actually being described, which inevitably leaves out volumes and volumes of information about what is actually going on, but which we can't ever fully encompass ourselves.
All we can do is understand and encompass is the 'analogue' big picture 'at a glance'.
Not _*all*_ the 'digital' details down to the Planck scale.  We can only look at those individually or a few at a time.


----------



## patrico (May 5, 2012)

most scientific theories are in fact just theories, not fact, 

they are just ideas that might fit what we are observing, 

also crappy the way modern science only really funds the investigation of the theories that fit the status quo, making it hard for offbeat ground breaking research to immerge,


----------



## D007 (May 5, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> 'Predate' is probably not the best word, as anything that occurred outside of the universe we live in is not temporally linked to us, here, in our universe.  But it suffices as a crude explanation.
> 
> It all depends on how the universe/multiverse is structured, dimensionally.  And how you interpret it.
> 
> ...



Lol kinda like talking about, time travel paradoxes..



patrico said:


> most scientific theories are in fact just theories, not fact,
> they are just ideas that might fit what we are observing,
> also crappy the way modern science only really funds the investigation of the theories that fit the status quo, making it hard for offbeat ground breaking research to immerge,



Agreed on that note. I quoted it earlier but it applies again. 
Einstein said "the only thing, that interferes with my learning, is my education.."
The status quo...

I got a couple for yas. 

Einstein did say energy can only change form and it cannot be destroyed. Can memories be said to be energy?
Wouldn't that increase the mass of an object? Maybe not visually, but dimensionally?

I know This may sound crazy.. Might even freak a couple people out.. But imagine this. 
Dark matter is actually the souls of the dead.. And since more and more things multiply and come to life.. The same is said for when they die. 
More souls are almost exponentially created, because more things, almost exponentially come to life..
Would kinda make sense, if there is enough death, to create the increasing expansion of the universe.  But life doesn't necessarily mean a heartbeat.. 
Maybe just a protein, or even an element can die and leave a "soul" + it's physical decay..


----------



## remixedcat (May 5, 2012)




----------



## Inceptor (May 5, 2012)

D007 said:


> Lol kinda like talking about, time travel paradoxes..



No, not really.


----------



## Inceptor (May 5, 2012)

D007 said:


> Einstein did say energy can only change form and it cannot be destroyed. Can memories be said to be energy?
> Wouldn't that increase the mass of an object? Maybe not visually, but dimensionally?



No, because your mass would be the 'aggregate' of all those 'energies'.  
Anyway, memories are not 'energy', they're networks of neural connections, those neural networks are chemically linked.  There is no increase of mass, no pulling of energy out of the air or out of an imaginary zero-point source.

Dead spirits/souls as dark matter... well... it's not exactly original, I suppose you could call it an aggregate of modern science fiction tropes combined with modern spiritualism; a variation on Babylon 5 'metaphysics'.


----------



## D007 (May 5, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> No, not really.



I meant in regards to how crazy the things you have to say end up being..
Like when you talk about time travel paradoxes. It just gets very complicated and very confusing. You took the statement to literal.



Inceptor said:


> No, because your mass would be the 'aggregate' of all those 'energies'.
> Anyway, memories are not 'energy', they're networks of neural connections, those neural networks are chemically linked.  There is no increase of mass, no pulling of energy out of the air or out of an imaginary zero-point source.
> 
> Dead spirits/souls as dark matter... well... it's not exactly original, I suppose you could call it an aggregate of modern science fiction tropes combined with modern spiritualism; a variation on Babylon 5 'metaphysics'.



Making opinions and calling them facts is not science.. You can't say memories have no energy. Nor can you factually say anything about what "aggregates" in the human body. 
How could you or anyone possibly know? No one does. Neurosurgeons do NOT even closely understand the brain.. You do?
I believe memories exist in two states,One physical, one metaphysical.  Potentially in two different dimensions.
But I don't call it fact. Just a theory, one that we have not even begun to explore.

Do you believe the extended presence of a person in a location, makes their physical/spiritual being, more connected to that location?
Some people would call that fact. Differences of opinion. 
You don't believe in a spirit or soul then, you're saying?
I think it has the potential to exist. Saying "No it doesn't, just because I say so" Isn't a very scientific approach lol.

What you call "Zero" point I call the beginning of the universe. Isn't before the big bang supposedly "zero point" Nothing existing?
Seems we pulled a whole universe, out of that zero point.
Now you're the judge of what's original too? Lol  Don't take the topic to serious k..
It's for fun.


----------



## Drone (May 5, 2012)

remixedcat said:


> http://i.imgur.com/nGuwN.jpg








lol so true


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

D007 said:


> Can memories be said to be energy?



yes

to add "bits" you either add or remove elementary particles or change the energy state which both change energy

the difference is not significant though. it's like saying the paper gets heavy because you write on it



D007 said:


> You don't believe in a spirit or soul then, you're saying?
> I think it has the potential to exist. Saying "No it doesn't, just because I say so" Isn't a very scientific approach lol.



dont mix science and religion.

if you have an experiment to test your theory, then run that experiment to confirm. and let other people come up with experiments on their own to disprove your theory. if it's not testable it's not science


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 5, 2012)

I'm more interested in finding out about other species in the galaxy/universe, what they might look like, their world, society and WHAT ARE THEY DOING at the moment. 

I sometimes look at the sky and say, Hell there's an Alien in some other planet light years away doing the same thing. 

What if aliens are monitoring us using super-tiny-smaller-than nano devices that even the micro-est of the microscopes can't see. 

What if Aliens are already in the contact with some governments/secret organizations(e.g. project serpo) 

Is there already a Mass Effect Council-Esque society out there? 

What If really we're actually created by Aliens and we are Aliens in our own earth. or mutated/uplifted by aliens from Monkey-stage(not trying to be conspiracy keanu or provoke a religious debate) 

What if Jesus really was an alien and all his miracles were just Advanced Tech(again No religious meaning) 

I am also concerned about the afterlife, what will happen to you after you die? Will you wake up again in a Familiar Place and someone say to you, Hey! you died in the game! and then everything comes back to you again and You Just Played an Advanced Video Game. like Matrix. 

What will happen to your memories? Will they be stored somewhere in the Universe? like dark matter as someone said above??? I think everything that happens and that happened are somehow stored in the universe. (e.g) all those events, and memories, you can retrieve with proper knowledge. 

Will you wake up again in baby/fetus form right after conception and reincarnate??? 

I have so many questions and those are just but a few. Reply to me with your ideas and opinions


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> I'm more interested in finding out about other species in the galaxy/universe, what they might look like, their world, society and WHAT ARE THEY DOING at the moment.
> 
> I sometimes look at the sky and say, Hell there's an Alien in some other planet light years away doing the same thing.
> 
> ...



and the only science question in here seems to be "and we are Aliens in our own earth". answer is per definition of "alien" we are not.

ask your favourite religion for the remaining answers. (i dont mean this offensive in any way. religion is great to answer such questions)

the better questions for science are "how.. ?"

not even science has an answer for "what if bulldozer were a fast processor. would intel go back into their spaceship and fly home?"


----------



## the54thvoid (May 5, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> I am also concerned about the afterlife, what will happen to you after you die? Will you wake up again in a Familiar Place and someone say to you, Hey! you died in the game! and then everything comes back to you again and You Just Played an Advanced Video Game. like Matrix.



"All we are is dust in the wind dude" (from a wise philosopher)

In fact, so much as is being said in your post, it's not science at all.  Asking questions and 'creating' answers is not science.  Science must be made from testable theory.  When you look to what may happen, it is science fiction or in the case of suppositions of an afterlife, you are in fact being non objective (being philosophical) by creating the premise that there is an afterlife.

As Wizzard said, if you place a belief in something without evidence, then religion is your best medicine.  And that is not meant with offence.  It's simply a necessity that scientific discussion requires both knowledge and validation, our own deaths defy both of those necessities.


----------



## Drone (May 5, 2012)

the54thvoid said:
			
		

> All we are is *dust*



*Literally*. Stars are made of dust and planets form from disks around stars. We are kinda made of stardust.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> "All we are is dust in the wind dude" (from a wise philosopher)
> 
> In fact, so much as is being said in your post, it's not science at all.  Asking questions and 'creating' answers is not science.  Science must be made from testable theory.  When you look to what may happen, it is science fiction or in the case of suppositions of an afterlife, you are in fact being non objective (being philosophical) by creating the premise that there is an afterlife.
> 
> As Wizzard said, if you place a belief in something without evidence, then religion is your best medicine.  And that is not meant with offence.  It's simply a necessity that scientific discussion requires both knowledge and validation, our own deaths defy both of those necessities.


I'm curious, is a probability something that amounts to evidence if it is less than 100% and if so, how far below 100% does it have to drop before it ceases to be "evidence?".

You see, I always find it amusing that people talk in absolutes  when there is no such animal - not in science certainly.  In fact, one of the few places where one can claim to find certainty is in a system of religious belief.  That's probably due to the fact that religion is so similar to other axiomatic systems, but I always find it to be an absolutely striking irony.


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

twilyth said:


> I'm curious, is a probability something that amounts to evidence if it is less than 100% and if so, how far below 100% does it have to drop before it ceases to be "evidence?".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

is that what you are looking for?

even if a mechanism "picks" completely randomly, you can still do science with it. for example radioactive decay is random, there is no magical decay clock in an atom. when applied to a large number of atoms that gives you the half life, which is a clearly defined value for each isotope


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
> 
> is that what you are looking for?
> 
> even if a mechanism "picks" completely randomly, you can still do science with it. for example radioactive decay is random, there is no magical decay clock in an atom. when applied to a large number of atoms that gives you the half life, which is a clearly defined value for each isotope



I'm vaguely familiar with things like stochastic modeling, linear and curvi-linear regression, yada, yada, but thanks for the tip.  My point was that people think that science bestows absolute certainty when in fact it is based on an empirical model - the diametric opposite of the sort of axiomatic system that actually *can *create some limited degree of certainty.  

It was just what I thought was an interesting observation.  I wasn't trying to rattle anyone's cage.


----------



## Norton (May 5, 2012)

twilyth said:


> I'm vaguely familiar with things like stochastic modeling, linear and curvi-linear regression, yada, yada, but thanks for the tip.  My point was that people think that science bestows absolute certainty when in fact it is based on an empirical model - the diametric opposite of the sort of axiomatic system that actually *can *create some limited degree of certainty.
> 
> It was just what I thought was an interesting observation.  I wasn't trying to rattle anyone's cage.



Reality and science is/are analog which is a difficult concept in a society going digital. Nothing fits neatly into 0/1, yes/no, or +/- pockets


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2012)

Norton said:


> Reality and science is/are analog which is a difficult concept in a society going digital. Nothing fits neatly into 0/1, yes/no, or +/- pockets



It seems so, but technically, the "quantum" in quantum mechanics actually means that you breaks things down into discrete packets - photons, electrons, etc.  But at the same time, every "particle" also has a wave function that is used to describe it.  So it's really both analog AND digital AT THE SAME TIME.  I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to keep saying it until at least one other person here has a psychotic break.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 5, 2012)

My other self told myself "twilyth for president!" 

Reality isn't real; it's what each individual perceives it to be. I am here AND there, constant, eternal, everlasting.


----------



## Kreij (May 5, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> not even science has an answer for "what if bulldozer were a fast processor. would intel go back into their spaceship and fly home?"



I suppose there may exist an alternate reality where AMD processors stomp all over Intel processors, but since there is no scientific method, that I know of, to test the theory we would just have to classify it under "wishful thinking" or "irrational logic".


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Reality isn't real; it's what each individual perceives it to be. I am here AND there, constant, eternal, everlasting



you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)



I'm both on my couch and in your internetz eatin ur bandz wit


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

twilyth said:


> I'm both on my couch and in your internetz eatin ur bandz wit



are you skynet? or siri?


----------



## m1dg3t (May 5, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> you claim that you can be in multiple places at the same time? (in a macroscopic world)



It's no claim, it's a fact. Perception is a wonderous thing! The world is much more interesting 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception



W1zzard said:


> are you skynet? or siri?



He is both! and we are the same


----------



## Drone (May 5, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Reality isn't real


Nobody knows. Maybe it's a _simulation_ software. Some physicists believe so. Because our world is pixilated fundamental particles are "pixels" and everything can be described by wave function. Our universe depends on probabilities with all those nested "IFs", "ORs","NOTs", "ANDs" "XORs". It appears to me that it is some kind of complex program based on unknown and weird algorithm.     



> it's what each individual perceives it to be.


Then we are like hardcore characters from Diablo. Everyone has own skills, level, exp, class etc. And we all have to go through all the ACTs. Yes it's all about perception. Everyone builds own character to play his/her game.



> I am here AND there, constant, _eternal, everlasting_.


This is kinda true. Because there's a theory which says that information *never* gets destroyed (even black holes can't destroy it completely). It means that past doesn't get erased and it's connected to present and future. And all this structure always existed, exists and will exist as one whole thing. It means all the mistakes we made are always there. Past events are like  indestructible polaroid shots.


----------



## Inceptor (May 5, 2012)

Drone said:


> Nobody knows. Maybe it's a _simulation_ software. Some physicists believe so. Because our world is pixilated fundamental particles are "pixels" and everything can be described by wave function. Our universe depends on probabilities with all those nested "IFs", "ORs","NOTs", "ANDs" "XORs". It appears to me that it is some kind of complex program based on unknown and weird algorithm.
> 
> Then we are like hardcore characters from Diablo. Everyone has own skills, level, exp, class etc. And we all have to go through all the ACTs. Yes it's all about perception. Everyone builds own character to play his/her game.
> 
> This is kinda true. Because there's a theory which says that information *never* gets destroyed (even black holes can't destroy it completely). It means that past doesn't get erased and it's connected to present and future. And all this structure always existed, exists and will exist as one whole thing. It means all the mistakes we made are always there. Past events are like  indestructible polaroid shots.



The Holographic Theory of Gerard T'Hooft?
It's an interesting possibility.

Here's a 90 minute video of a panel discussion on the topic, with physicists Gerard t'Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Herman Verlinde, and Raphael Bousso.  Great discussion, although Susskind is a bit plodding at times.
http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_hologram


----------



## twilyth (May 5, 2012)

I'm at best a dilettante when it comes to these things so I only know what I read that's been dumbed down for lay people.  But the impression I get is that there is growing dissension among theoretical physicists over string theory.  To put it in a nutshell, it seems to explain everything by explaining nothing.  IOW, various flavors of string theory seem to tie everything together more or less but provide few if any testable hypotheses.  And really, when you come right down to it, any scientific theory that you can't actually test isn't much better than a religious belief.


----------



## Kreij (May 5, 2012)

I had to deal with string theory this morning. My wife came back from catfish fishing the other day and made a huge rats nest of her line and got it so completely embedded in her casting reel that i had to dismantle it to get it out.

Kreij's rule #1 of string theory : Get out the pocket knife, you're gonna need it.


----------



## Inceptor (May 5, 2012)

twilyth said:


> I'm at best a dilettante when it comes to these things so I only know what I read that's been dumbed down for lay people.  But the impression I get is that there is growing dissension among theoretical physicists over string theory.  To put it in a nutshell, it seems to explain everything by explaining nothing.  IOW, various flavors of string theory seem to tie everything together more or less but provide few if any testable hypotheses.  And really, when you come right down to it, any scientific theory that you can't actually test isn't much better than a religious belief.



The ultimate epistemological problem.
'a priori' vs 'a posteriori'
'analytic' vs 'synthetic'
etc etc
As I understand it, String theory and related ideas, provide a _*mathematical solution*_ and reconciliation between Quantum mechanics and General Relativity. 
There's the problem; it seems to be mathematically consistent, but is physically untestable, at this point.

So, at this point, what can be said? Either mathematics has a deep inconsistency somewhere that we are not aware of at this time, rendering the solutions of String theory invalid, or the mathematics of String theory are consistent and so String theory is _'analytically_' true, even if it is _'empirically' _unverified.


----------



## W1zzard (May 5, 2012)

string theory is mostly based on elegant math that looks nice to theorists. it makes no predictions, so it's not testable, which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science. this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.

also string theory keeps inventing new features to stay one step ahead of its opponents


----------



## Kreij (May 5, 2012)

> One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
> 
> The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
> 
> ...



Just thought I'd throw that in to the discussion to add a little flavor.


----------



## Inceptor (May 6, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science.



That's one way of looking at it, but I'd phrase it this way:
"which means it is closer to pure mathematics and philosophy than to empirical science"

To a mathematician, mathematics is the pure science; number theory, for example.
To a physical scientist, biologist, or engineer, pure science involves empirical verification.

Mathematics precedes physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering, and is used by those disciplines.
But it's not empirical, it's a purely mental discipline which manipulates purely abstract concepts and objects.

In some ways, the old perception still exists, that mathematics is not science, that it is a branch of the Arts.  Or at best somewhere in-between bundled with the Philosophy of Mathematics, Formal Logic, and Mathematical logic.

It all makes me wonder if it ever will be possible to empirically confirm anything beyond whatever is discovered with the LHC and its larger, more powerful, successor.


----------



## twilyth (May 6, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> That's one way of looking at it, but I'd phrase it this way:
> "which means it is closer to pure mathematics and philosophy than to empirical science"
> 
> To a mathematician, mathematics is the pure science; number theory, for example.
> ...



The problem with axiomatic systems though is that they can never be complete unless they have inconsistent axioms - isn't that one of the implications of Goedel's Completeness Theorems?


----------



## D007 (May 6, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> dont mix science and religion.
> if you have an experiment to test your theory, then run that experiment to confirm. and let other people come up with experiments on their own to disprove your theory. if it's not testable it's not science



This is what I knew, someone would think, I was trying to do, but I'm not. I don't think anyone is qualified enough to say "no we don't have a soul".
I am not religious..
But no one can say we don't. therefor I leave the possibility on the table. 

We believe in alternate dimensions but we don't think our soul could reside, in an alternate dimension. Maybe that is the connection. I stress maybe. But To say "we don't have a soul because there is no proof and we can't test it"?
Maybe we just don't have a method, to test it.

There are things we cannot even begin to comprehend and we have no methods of testing them. That doesn't mean we don't believe in them.. You can't test a wormhole or traveling through time. But we believe the possibility "may" exist. 

Can't test string theory really, though there are about a million, different theories about it..
But I can't say, "Since I can't verify string theory is real, I have to say it can't be real." That is a bit dangerous.
Just throwing it out there..lol.. No religion at all. I really want to keep this topic off religion tbh.
It's just something I've always wondered about.  



W1zzard said:


> this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.



That's exactly what I'm hoping for. A little effort, to make a definitive decision, in regards to a "soul".
I quotate that, because like I said previously, I am not saying a soul would be what people expect it to be. It could just be, almost nothing or nothing at all.
Both of which I'm fine with. Such is life.. I think.. Or is it?... heh..


----------



## Inceptor (May 6, 2012)

twilyth said:


> The problem with axiomatic systems though is that they can never be complete unless they have inconsistent axioms - isn't that one of the implications of Goedel's Completeness Theorems?



Godel's Incompleteness theorems, yes.
I don't think any mathematicians have tackled the problem of showing how this incompleteness manifests itself.  

How do you prove, with any kind of consistent certainty, with mathematical methods, within the structure of mathematical rules, that the structure of mathematical rules is inconsistent?
You have to step outside of the system, but how do you do that and remain rational, objective and scientific?  
Godel could do it because he was 'up-one-level' of abstraction from the system of mathematical logic itself, but still operating on a rational, formal, logical level.
So, _*logically*_ and _*analytically*_, it's understood.  
Practically?  That's another question entirely.

Mathematical logic is interesting, I'm very very rusty, I haven't thought about it in years.  But there is a distinction between a system that is, 'finitely consistent' and one that is 'infinitely consistent'.  A 'finitely consistent' system is commonplace.  The stronger, more extreme form of the Incompleteness theorem basically says that an 'infinitely consistent' mathematical system is not possible.  'Infinitely consistent' meaning a mathematical system that is consistent and complete across an infinitely large range; in other words, within an infinitely large axiomatic system something will be undecidable (i.e. unprovable).

Maybe it's all academic and such undecidability won't come to light this early in the Universe's history.  If the cosmologists are right we've got trillions of quadrillions of years ahead of us.  So, maybe it's OK if it works, in the 'short term', even though it's ultimately undecidable


----------



## twilyth (May 6, 2012)

Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?

Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms.  I think this is what Goedel disproved.

Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.


----------



## D007 (May 6, 2012)

twilyth said:


> Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?
> 
> Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms.  I think this is what Goedel disproved.
> 
> Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.



I like where the conversation is going. I can grasp what you are talking about but I was unaware of this, until just now. This is why I enjoy, engaging in conversations, with intelligent people.



Kreij said:


> God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"



Ha, very interesting, the implications, that simple statement makes.. Gets pretty deep, if you really think about it.



W1zzard said:


> string theory is mostly based on elegant math that looks nice to theorists. it makes no predictions, so it's not testable, which means it is closer to religion and philosophy than to science. this doesnt mean that putting more research into it may lead to new theories that may provide something useful.
> 
> also string theory keeps inventing new features to stay one step ahead of its opponents



That's what bugs me about string theory. Anything that can just keep spewing out more math, to compensate for shortcomings, is IMHO the wrong direction and likely a waste of time, that could be going toward, something actually feasible.

It's like shoving the square block, into a circle.. Yea you can do it, but it won't be pretty and it's obviously, not the way, to go about it.


----------



## Inceptor (May 6, 2012)

twilyth said:


> Could you be thinking of the difference between consistency and completeness?
> 
> Completeness says that you can derive all true conclusions permitted by your axioms.  I think this is what Goedel disproved.
> 
> Consistency IIRC says that all correctly derived conclusions will be true.




I'm probably using the terminology incorrectly.
This is in territory that's deep water for me. But, from what I understand, being able to derive all true conclusions from your axioms is consistency; the system is axiomatically consistent.  That is what Godel disproved, that it is actually inconsistent, and in order to do it, he went outside the axiomatic system of formal mathematics.  Up one level of abstraction.  
But what I was referring to about 'finitely consistent' and 'infinitely consistent' systems was a distinction between an axiomatic system that is large, but not infinite, and one that actually is, for all intents, infinite.  If the system is not infinite, but extremely large in scope, then I think it can be proved to have at least a limited consistency that would seem 'good enough' to us.  If it is 'infinite', it cannot be consistent or complete, according to Godel's logic.

The abstract idea behind the incompleteness theorem is so compelling.  It would be interesting if that abstract logical structure had analogues in other areas of study, and knowledge.  But it's too speculative for any kind of serious, systematic analysis to have been done.


----------



## Drone (May 6, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> As I understand it, String theory and related ideas, provide a _*mathematical solution*_ and reconciliation between Quantum mechanics and General Relativity.
> There's the problem; it seems to be mathematically consistent, but is physically untestable, at this point.




I thought some scientist proved that universe can be described by bare naked maths. After all theoretical physics is more about maths than physics. The bad thing is strings require ultra high energies, something we cannot provide. We don't have accelerator which could break down matter into strings. We can't even get free quarks (confinement). Only space itself can carry out such experiments with ultra high energies. I guess we only have to build more sensitive telescopes and other equipment so we could measure it. In a nutshell we just stay and stare to catch the moment.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 6, 2012)

Just wanted to interject with some unintelligent rambling's 

I believe every person has a "soul" it is our core energy, everything has energy, when our body "dies" it (our soul/energy) transforms/transcends and we continue to "be" in another place/time, whether or not we are conscious of this is unknown and is as speculative as this idea in itself. Just because we can not quantify something, at this time, does not mean it doesn't exist and i'm not referring to religion as i think the likelihood of a God scenario as depicted in modern religion's is a stretch, at best.I think it is more likely the "Bible" is/are accounts of visitations from advanced beings in our history. I think i'm more of a philosopher than a physicist; however physics does interest me greatly. 

String theory and Null physics (which no one has mentioned and not very "important" at this time) are in the "early" stages of study so it's is rather hard to discredit their validity at this point in time IMHO. I believe their true value will come to fruition as the field/s mature; whether it be directly related to them or applied to other known areas physics.

"Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence" 

Great converstaion people!


----------



## D007 (May 6, 2012)

Reading back on some of this stuff, makes my mind twirl..lol. If there area any zombies nearby, that are on the internets. You can expect them, to be looking for the people, with big brains.. Barricade your houses people!

Ever hear what Nostradamus said about telepathy? He said anyone can use telepathy. You just take two people and have them know, where the other one is at and be familiar with that location, in detail. You concentrate on that location and that person and after doing this, for some time, you will form a telepathic link.. 

I know, sounds completely ludicrous. But I always wondered about it. I still think humanity is capable of more..


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 7, 2012)

D007 said:


> Ever hear what Nostradamus said about telepathy? He said anyone can use telepathy. You just take two people and have them know, where the other one is at and be familiar with that location, in detail. You concentrate on that location and that person and after doing this, for some time, you will form a telepathic link..
> 
> I know, sounds completely ludicrous. But I always wondered about it. I still think humanity is capable of more..



this I agree, In my understanding, Our brain is an Hybrid Electrical/Chemical Machine, it just uses electrical impulses to transfer info all over the body, correct me if I'm wrong, If we can just learn how to send it controllably (only send what we wanna send) to other people DIRECTLY, brain to brain, not in verbal, written, etc, form. 

One problem is what type of info would you send, You might end up moving the other person's arm or head instead of just sending a message.

There must be a part of the brain that can or is capable of sending information to other brains. we haven't just unlocked/learnt it. or maybe it needs a kind of devices that can amplify the brains ability to send.

But this is dangerous, You lose your brain, you lose your mind, you lose yourself, you lose your life, you die.


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> Our brain is an Hybrid Electrical/Chemical Machine, it just uses electrical impulses to transfer info all over the body, correct me if I'm wrong, If we can just learn how to send it controllably (only send what we wanna send) to other people DIRECTLY, brain to brain, not in verbal, written, etc, form.



how much power does your brain use? how much power is needed to transmit information? doing simple rough calculations helps with such claims


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2012)

The entire central nervous system operates off of electrical pulses/impulses, basically our whole body. Telepathy is possible IMHO but in the society we currently live in i find it highly doubtfull we will evolve this capability as we don't really have a "need" for it. Evolution baby!

Neuro science is still in it's infancy, as are many sciences, so the future look's extremely promising. To me anyways


----------



## twilyth (May 7, 2012)

Neuroscientists thought for a long time that neurons were the only brain cells that were really important for conscious thought, but they're beginning to realize otherwise.  Electrical signaling I think can happen between glial cells too (see anon), but the pulses you read on an EEG are all being pumped out by neurons.  Here's a good overview.



> When we hear the words “brain cells” most of us immediately picture the spindly, spider-like neurons that send electrical messages through our brain. But did you know that these make up just 10% of our brains? The other 90% is comprised of cells called glia, Greek for “glue”. For many years, glia were quite literally thought to be the ‘glue’ of the brain, supporting the all-important neurons. We observed that neurons could send electrical signals, whereas glia could not, turning our scientific attention toward neurons as the active, information processing components of the nervous system. In the last twenty-or-so years, however, it has become clear that glia are far more than cerebral superglue. They are now thought to play a key role in how our brains work and process information, both in health and disease[1, 2].
> 
> Glia can be divided into two categories: microglia are like the immune cells of the brain, vacuuming debris and foreign bodies; macroglia come in several flavours, and the most important of these for information processing are the astrocytes – star-shaped cells found throughout the brain.



more at the link - feed your head.


----------



## D007 (May 7, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> The entire central nervous system operates off of electrical pulses/impulses, basically our whole body. Telepathy is possible IMHO but in the society we currently live in i find it highly doubtfull we will evolve this capability as we don't really have a "need" for it. Evolution baby!
> 
> Neuro science is still in it's infancy, as are many sciences, so the future look's extremely promising. To me anyways



We'd have a need, if we didn't invent, stupid cell phones..lol..


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Telepathy is possible IMHO



don't "imho", bring forward some basic plausbility checks, like:



			
				Wikipedia EEG article said:
			
		

> A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when measured from the scalp[27] and is about 10–20 mV when measured from subdural electrodes.



typical cellphone peaks are in the 1 W power range. given 10 mV voltage in the brain that would require 100 amp current which you can't produce or transmit through tissue without incredible losses that generate heat and would probably make you burn up.

cell phone range is only to the next tower, not to every human on the planet.

also the limits for EM radiation by health organizations would be greatly exceeded by telepathy.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> don't "imho", bring forward some basic plausbility checks, like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am entitled to my opinion as you are your's and i was trying to express it humbly, apologies if i offended you.

Our brain's are more complex "computer's" than our PC's, yet do they have the same power requirement's? Do they exhibit the exact same charecteristic's? Technoloogy is not nature & vice versa; although we try to use technology to change/replace nature and that, IMHO, is the biggest factor in stifling our evolutionary advancement.


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> I am entitled to my opinion as you are your's and i was trying to express it humbly, apologies if i offended you.



i'm sorry. i sometimes come across as a bit blunt when it comes to these topics. i'm not offended in any way, and i didnt mean to offend you either.



> Our brain's are more complex "computer's" than our PC's, yet do they have the same power requirement's? Do they exhibit the exact same charecteristic's? Technoloogy is not nature & vice versa; although we try to use technology to change/replace nature and that, IMHO, is the biggest factor in stifling our evolutionary advancement.



the brain operates on physical principles, just like any other technology. the brain uses energy (calories, which are just joules, which are watt seconds). the electric signals in it operate just like any other electric signal.

actually i believe that technology is the only way to accelerate our evolution. biological evolution is incredibly slow, but technology seems to work on an exponential growth curve. the only evolutionary advantage we have over everything else that wants to eat us is that we have brains that we can use to build tools, that we can use to fix our evolutionary shortcomings.


----------



## cadaveca (May 7, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> that we can use to fix our evolutionary shortcomings



Identifying and changing those things is where the problem lies. Kinda treading into "scary" territory with that one. Too many smart people will break the economy worse than it is already. 

However, if we have mechanical organs, it's only natural that things will progress in that direction.


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Identifying and changing those things is where the problem lies. Kinda treading into "scary" territory with that one. Too many smart people will break the economy worse than it is already.
> 
> However, if we have mechanical organs, it's only natural that things will progress in that direction.



strip away all your technology and go sit outside. which economy? i can haz water plz?
if you are smart you will figure out how to use a rock to steal your neighbours water


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 7, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> i'm sorry. i sometimes come across as a bit blunt when it comes to these topics. i'm not offended in any way, and i didnt mean to offend you either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly our evolution has made us adapt faster then most everything else on the planet. If anything tech is WAY behind us. Tech will not make us "evolve" faster. If anything its holding us back.


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly our evolution has made us adapt faster then most everything else on the planet. If anything tech is WAY behind us. Tech will not make us "evolve" faster. If anything its holding us back.



see my previous post. we use tools (= technology) to adapt to problems. animals use evolution, see where it got them. humans are claiming every biological niche because we have technology to be able to use any niche


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 7, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> see my previous post. we use tools (= technology) to adapt to problems. animals use evolution, see where it got them



Evolution gave us the brain to make tools. Now these tools are making our brain apathetic.


----------



## W1zzard (May 7, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Evolution gave us the brain to make tools. Now these tools are making our brain apathetic.



that's a great point. without technology lazy people would just die, maybe that pollutes our gene pool? 

on the other hand we see individuals today do extraordinary things and communities form that wouldnt be possible before (like tpu!)


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2012)

I actualy have to agree with TMM here 

Don't over simplify nature and the human "composition" W1zz.

For the record i was/am not offended, my skin is thicker than that 

Eugenics/natural selection is key to evolution and we are tossing that out the window with technology 



Edit: I should say that the integration of technology into our society is definately a good thing as it allows us to do thing's we otherwise would be incapable of but we have an over-dependance on it and as such we get where we are today. If that make's any sense?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 7, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> that's a great point. without technology lazy people would just die, maybe that pollutes our gene pool?
> 
> on the other hand we see individuals today do extraordinary things and communities form that wouldnt be possible before (like tpu!)



I can dig that.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2012)

Just take a look at something like Dolphins and echo-location, how advanced is that!?!

We think we are the shit because we have opposable thumbs and can communicate verbally and form "languages" 

We are but a VERY small part of the life "line" on this planet, our species/genotype (or whatever it's called) is what; no more than 300k/400k years old 

In comparisson the earth is what, 4.5 billion or something?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 7, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Just take a look at something like Dolphins and echo-location, how advanced is that!?!
> 
> We think we are the shit because we have opposable thumbs and can communicate verbally and form "languages"
> 
> ...



We are 6.5 million years old (very young by evolution). Earth is about 4.5 BILLION give or take (young by planet standards). But that's been up for debate as carbon dating has been found to be flawed.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2012)

You caught me before ninja edit! lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Edit: Primates use tool's all the time, we are primates, a derrivate of anyways, therefore we are animals. Still.


----------



## stinger608 (May 8, 2012)

D4S4 said:


> i pick this one - alcubierre drive.





Easy Rhino said:


> as someone with the ability to bend space and time, i assure you i know everything and you humans know next to nothing.




You must understand D4S4, the planet that Easy Rhino is from has what is called Phalistimite which is a very necessary chemical compound for "faster than light" speed as humans refer to it. There is no known compound on Tera that compares to Phalistimite. Many off world beings have been put here on this planet in the attempt to recreate this compound in order for Phalite speed as it is called on other worlds. 

As the human race does not have the symbols to represent true Phalistimite I am unable to produce the chemical equation for this compound. 

I do not have the proper keyboard for doing this, so maybe, just maybe Easy Rhino has the keyboard to create an image of the chemical equation for you.


----------



## DannibusX (May 8, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We are 6.5 million years old (very young by evolution). Earth is about 4.5 BILLION give or take (young by planet standards). But that's been up for debate as carbon dating has been found to be flawed.



The earth and humanity are 4000 years old.


----------



## Inceptor (May 8, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> The earth and humanity are 4000 years old.



Wrong place for that kind of comment.  Unless it was a joke.


----------



## D007 (May 8, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> i'm sorry. i sometimes come across as a bit blunt when it comes to these topics. i'm not offended in any way, and i didnt mean to offend you either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We will go much further, much faster, technically than biologically, I couldn't agree more. 

Imo though, necessity is the mother of invention. We have no necessity,  so our bodies gave up evolving, a long time ago.. Mostly because we made them.. Cut out tech and we'd evolve faster but it would still be, a snails pace, for sure..  

In regards to telepathy though.. Lol cell signal and power ratings.. I always considered it, more of a constant bridge, that always exists. There is no loss of connection, no "signal", as we know them. The connection has always existed. To me the telepathic connection is like:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-mechanics-shown-work-visible-world-time.html
The paddle is like our brain.. Exisiting in multiple states. Connected to other things, within that state.



TheMailMan78 said:


> We are 6.5 million years old (very young by evolution). Earth is about 4.5 BILLION give or take (young by planet standards). But that's been up for debate as carbon dating has been found to be flawed.



My gf is like... twice that.. >.>
Carbon date my gf.. please..



DannibusX said:


> The earth and humanity are 4000 years old.



lol. We have a comedian.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 9, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We are 6.5 million years old (very young by evolution). Earth is about 4.5 BILLION give or take (young by planet standards). But that's been up for debate as carbon dating has been found to be flawed.



Please see my previous post in case you missed it. AFAIK you can not carbon date rock and if i'm not mistaken they use some method of measuring radio active decay to calculate the age of the earth 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth



DannibusX said:


> The earth and humanity are 4000 years old.



Please see wiki link's above & below, although i'm sure you're being sarcastic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Early_civilizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe


----------



## D007 (May 10, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Please see my previous post in case you missed it. AFAIK you can not carbon date rock and if i'm not mistaken they use some method of measuring radio active decay to calculate the age of the earth



Uranium isotopes I believe it is.. An atom decays at a set rate, measuring it's half life I think is what makes time measurable.. You do know rocks are made of atoms right? Rocks aren't just "rocks"..

I'd be in here more, but I'm overclocking my new 680 and it's tuns o' fun... hehe...


----------



## m1dg3t (May 10, 2012)

Interesting discussion, courtesy of the link earlier provided by AphexDreamer












D007 said:


> You do know rocks are made of atoms right? Rocks aren't just "rocks"



Not sure if you're trolling or just presuming that i am massively ignorant? I guess i should have been more clear/specific in saying that it's efficacy in regards to calculating the age of the earth is inconsistent at best, if even possible. I assumed that it was "common" knowledge, my mistake 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/radiom.html

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

No matter; what ever i say is irrelevant anyways as i am simply a high school dropout, who was later expelled from college. I use "drugs"/sold drugs and even "pimped" women at one point in time of my life  

My main field of study/career was as an automotive service technician so therefore i am an imbecille ranting mindlessly about subjects which i can not begin to comprehend and are well beyond my mental capacity/interests.

Sincerest apologies to all for reducing the intellectual quality of this conversation/topic.

Good day


----------



## Lionheart (May 10, 2012)

Everything is energy which we cannot see because of our limits with the naked eye and we live in a 3rd dimensional vibration frequency...hehe


----------



## D007 (May 17, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> Interesting discussion, courtesy of the link earlier provided by AphexDreamer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol you didn't, all are welcome. 



Lionheart said:


> Everything is energy which we cannot see because of our limits with the naked eye and we live in a 3rd dimensional vibration frequency...hehe



This is widely accepted as fact, for the most part. 
couldn't see nebulas without multi-spectrum vision.


----------



## m1dg3t (Aug 29, 2012)

Hmmm...

[yt]-JiYLR0tSp4[/yt]


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 30, 2012)

[yt]HN-BRLptkaA[/yt]


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 5, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> [yt]HN-BRLptkaA[/yt



I tried to watch the vid, really i did, but the guy just comes across as someone who hates ideas that are different from the "accepted norm" or his own. How many "debunking" vids does he have? Enough to debunk himself IMHO. He honestly comes across as a pretentious/nihilistic (i'm finding these to be very common trait/s amongst my generation) college student lacking any original ideas/theories and trying to make a name for himself by "shitting" on other people and their ideas.

Do i agree with everything Mr.Braden says/thinks? NO. Is he wrong about certain things? YES. Is he right about certian things? YES. Is he an original thinker? YES. Does he activate the imagination? YES. I really don't care to discuss this any further TBH as it ultimately is irrelevant to anything as you have your opinion and i have mine. Such is life. 

Oh, and just to be a "dick": They debunked a million people in life untill they were "proven" to be right. I thought you would have known that


----------



## lyndonguitar (Sep 6, 2012)

I was thinking the other day and have come up with a theory.

If the Universe is just one big program that is running everything, a simulation in a way, just a bunch of complex rules, if, else, not, or, etc..., and the tiniest bits of particles are the pixels, which is, like binary, just governed by just two different values.

and what we see in our eyes are just our Advanced Intelligence's 3D interpretation of what the program is processing right now.

Then that would mean we don't have free will at all, and there is no point in parallel universes, No point in alternate history, There is no randomization, Its just one big movie.

Everything and Everyone has a definite path from the start. Its just a matter of "key" when it comes to encryption. and that key has already been defined. by whom or what, I don't know.

Imagine something happening in real life, observe the results.. then imagine it happening again, having the exact same conditions, same exact particles, same position in the universe, same air movement, same everything. it would produce the exact same result right?

Just look at it, You can't really produce real random numbers in a software. you need a physical device. That physical device in turn is governed by the universe which in my opinion another more complex software that is also not truly random.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 6, 2012)

thats it im taking the purple pill!


----------



## Drone (Sep 6, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:
			
		

> If the Universe is just one big program that is running everything, a simulation in a way, just a bunch of complex rules, if, else, not, or, etc...
> Then that would mean we don't have free will at all, and there is no point in parallel universes, No point in alternate history, There is no randomization, Its just one big movie.



Universe *is* program. Because everything is just a set of physical rules and recursions no matter how you look at them. And it's all *simulation* anyway because human can't perceive <reality> as is. Brain is our interpreter. "Free will" don't even exist, we just *create* our own will, because in simulated world we build our simulations. M-theory and cosmologists say that energy of the universe is *zero* (negative energy of gravity + positive energy of the matter).    



> Everything and Everyone has a definite path from the start. Its just a matter of "key" when it comes to encryption. and that key has already been defined. by whom or what, I don't know.



As I said above if zero energy theory is true then life has no meaning at all, even for stars which can "live" for billions of years. Because at the global scale everything is defined. In the end gravity will say "hey dudes you used my energy for a long time and now give back". In our short lives we try to find meaning because it's the best we can do now.

I don't know but maybe one day human will rise and create own universe and set own rules.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 6, 2012)

And if zero energy theory is true it does not mean life is meaningless simply because a certain fundamental has a value of zero... We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.


----------



## Drone (Sep 6, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:
			
		

> And if zero energy theory is true it does not mean life is meaningless simply because a certain fundamental has a value of zero... We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.



I think you misunderstood. I just said that life has no meaning by design but it can get one if human being or other living creature with intelligence tries to find it. Energy is like a bunny hopping from one state to another. Some thing gets it, other thing loses it but in the end it doesn't really matter, just like _being conscious in imaginary world_. 

Like they said "I need to get out to see what's outside".


----------



## lyndonguitar (Sep 6, 2012)

Drone said:


> As I said above if zero energy theory is true then life has no meaning at all, even for stars which can "live" for billions of years. Because at the global scale everything is defined. In the end gravity will say "hey dudes you used my energy for a long time and now give back". In our short lives we try to find meaning because it's the best we can do now.



pretty much what I am thinking,  its just one big already-done script happening right now. except I didn't thought of that zero energy thing, I just found about it now.

I based it all by comparing Real Life vs Softwares.



Drone said:


> I don't know but maybe one day human will rise and create own universe and set own rules.



We already have that. with Video Games, with Physics Engines, Graphics Engines, Simulators, Sandbox Games. but in a "less realistic" way



AphexDreamer said:


> We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.



That is very interesting. from what I've said earlier there is no "*true randomness*" because if you observe something happening, It is not entirely random, there are reasons why it happened, The reason why we say something is "random" is because there's too many factors going on that is way more than the human's *capacity* to be able to predict, determine and judge. 

But I can tell that we are really advancing on that "capacity". Years ago we can't predict the weather, Now we can know the probability of raining or not, and etc, maybe we are still missing in alot of factors to be able to completely predict these kind of things.

for example you observe a paper falling to the ground, why did such an object move that way? too many factors going on, to name a few..  the object's position, the things around it, air, gravity, pressure, temperature, the condition of the things around it, the properties of the object itself, and so on.

Get the same exact things/conditions again and simulate it = same thing will happen over and over again. that means there are no dynamic events, no randomization, no free will.

What buggles me now that you mention it is the human brain and our capacity to *assign and interpret our own values from nothing*. Its the only thing from what I know that is hard to think as being pre-determined and predictable.

I dunno if we can really create random values in our brain or it is just an illusion of freewill, An illusion in a way that our actions and our future actions are actually already defined as well, We are just given an illusion that we can think and create on our own, but really what we come up with is what the universe is exactly expecting for us to do.

Yea, I can choose whether to go left or right, I was given a choice and I'd gone left, Not knowing that left was really the predetermined choice I was gonna take. by what affecting factors? We don't know.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 11, 2012)

@lyndonguitar  Wish we could have this discussion up close, would make things easier because I know I can go on for a while.

But the short version of it is (i think), since we don't know everything things can either be interpreted as random or not and this has been discussed since the birth of philosophy (probably) and there have been fantastic arguments on both sides but no one can ever really give an answer. Which is probably why Quantum Superposition exists to begin with. 

And no matter how you choose to see it. One way or another shit is going to just happen man, whether it was random or predetermined. 

And if we are some sort of simulation, then we know it is probably physically impossible to comprehend a world out side of our own if not super hard. Because that would be like saying we can manifest virtual things into our real world. So until any headway is made into that kind of technology I'm going to go on the lines of dam near impossible.

Also can't a system contain both random and constant values?


----------



## silkstone (Sep 11, 2012)

I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 11, 2012)

silkstone said:


> I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.



sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment. 

to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined

"does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example


----------



## Drone (Sep 11, 2012)

silkstone said:


> I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.



Well I'd say that all global sciences are not 100% accurate. For instance, uncertainty principle is a pain in the ass. It says that it's impossible to measure anything without disturbing it. Any attempt to measure a particle's position must randomly change its speed. It means that every measurement will never be correct and nothing can be predicted. We all have to work with approximations and that's that.


----------



## silkstone (Sep 12, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment.
> 
> to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined
> 
> "does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example



That's what my Prof's said. I think it was something to do with the fact that nothing in Astrophysics can be directly measured. Then again, maybe it was beacuse we can only prove a theory to a certain degree of certainty based on observations, statistically, we can never reach 100% certainty. I forget the full reasoning  but it made sense at the time.

The experiment whether the sun moves around the earth, i wouldn't exactly call a physics experiment. However, an equation to predict the orbit of the earth around the sun could be formed, however it would be impossible to prove to 100% certainty.

Edit Found something that explains it:

Simple Answer: Nothing is guaranteed 100%. (In life or physics)

Now to the physics part of the question.

Soft-Answer:

Physics uses positivism and observational proof through the scientific process. No observation is 100% accurate there is uncertainty in all measurement but repetition gives less chance for arbitrary results.

Every theory and for that matter laws in physics are observational representations that best allow prediction of future experiments. Positivism can overcome theological and philosophical discrepancies such as what is the human perception of reality. Is real actually real type questions.

The scientific process is an ever evolving representation of acquired knowledge based on rigorous experimental data.

No theory is set in stone so to speak as new results allow for modification and fine tuning of scientific theory.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31068/can-a-scientific-theory-ever-be-absolutely-proven - There are some other good explanations on there, too.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> [yt]7ImvlS8PLIo[/yt



You posted that already a couple pages back 









 
















 << Best part is "Continuing Education" IMO lol  

Follow the links through the Yt pages and enjoy! Thank you Dr.Susskind, Internet & Stanford University for making this available to the masses!


----------



## D007 (Sep 13, 2012)

Wish I could see these pics at work.. ; ;.. Man you guys really know how to take something and run with it..lol.. 
As for predetermined fate.. All I know is I'm going to enjoy whatever control I do have. As arbitrary as it may be.

Nothing however has been set in stone imo.. 
For all we know we may one day figure out how to leave this universe and branch off into another...
Might even be able to create a new one..

To me that throws all the rules right out the window..
There are more possibilities in this universe than we even remotely comprehend.. 
We can't even see the end of it yet.. Much less understand it in all it's intricacies.. 

If my lack of understanding the universe in all it's glory has given me anything thing.. It's the sense of being humble and the enjoyment I get, out of simply looking up and even just thinking about how big everything out there really is. There's a lot of insanity going on in every direction I look.. Just can't see it.. Right this second a star may be going supernova.. A new species may of comes into existence on some far planet.. Anything.. Something.. Nothing... Who knows..

Even the tip of my own finger is beyond my understanding..
gotta  it..


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

D007 They are a few vids by Dr.Leonard Susskind titled "The world as a Hologram" "Demistifying the Higgs Boson" and "Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics Lecture 1"

If you can spare about 5Hrs of your life i highly reccomend watching them, if you can spare more; Watch more of his vids


----------



## D007 (Sep 13, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> D007 They are a few vids by Dr.Leonard Susskind titled "The world as a Hologram" "Demistifying the Higgs Boson" and "Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics Lecture 1"
> 
> If you can spare about 5Hrs of your life i highly reccomend watching them, if you can spare more; Watch more of his vids



That sounds like something I would actually enjoy.. ty.


----------



## 3870x2 (Sep 13, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment.
> 
> to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined
> 
> "does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example



I think that he means that in the scientific process, nothing can be proven in astrophysics.  More like a statement about the rules than the actual logic.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> I think that he means that in the scientific process, nothing can be proven in astrophysics.  More like a statement about the rules than the actual logic.



The act of measuring/observing imparts a change on what ever it is you are observing/measuring. I think this is the problem....


----------



## D007 (Sep 13, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> The act of measuring/observing imparts a change on what ever it is you are observing/measuring. I think this is the problem....



This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?
Neato....


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

D007 said:


> This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?
> Neato....



IIRC It is a "rule" of Quantum Mechanics, don't quote me as i'm just an idiot! Plus i just partook in some herbal remedies 

Edit: This is what i'm thinking about 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2012)

D007 said:


> This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?


Not applicable to our world, it only works on quantum level. If you look at hot chick she won't be yours


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> Not applicable to our world, it only works on quantum level. If you look at hot chick she won't be yours



The affect of the effect is applicable just that the observeable change is less IIRC. Has to do with mass/velocity... e=mc2 and all that shizzle...


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2012)

Not really. If you want to "see" an electron you shoot a photon at it. When you do so electron changes its speed/location. Now apply it to a larage object, would it care? It wouldn't.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> Not really. If you want to "see" an electron you shoot a photon at it. When you do so electron changes its speed/location. Now apply it to a larage object, would it care? It wouldn't.



You are thinking slit/DBL slit experiment OR "Youngs experiment" correct? If so; You can do the experiment using bowling balls and still witness the same type of effect, albeit on a smaller visible/quantifiable scale. Due to their size/mass the changes are smaller but still present. I think. 

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 13, 2012)

You guys need to start thinking in terms of error bars/sigmas for your philosophical discussions and throw out everything that doesn't have any significant effect


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> You are thinking slit/DBL slit experiment OR "Youngs experiment" correct?


I wouldn't say so. Particles' nature is dual (wave and particle). 

http://www.mikeblaber.org/oldwine/chm1045/notes/Struct/Dual/Struct04.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860600.html

That's how interference happens (bright and dark stripes of light). Regular objects don't act like that. You can't throw a brick in two windows at the same time.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> You can't throw a brick in two windows at the same time.



Maybe you can't.


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2012)

^ tbh you're not funny, rather annoying


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> ^ tbh you're not funny, rather annoying



Its just your analogy was just so much fail I couldn't resist.


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2012)

The one who fails is you, go troll somewhere else because I don't really have any desire to waste my time on you.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2012)

Drone said:


> The one who fails is you, go troll somewhere else because I don't really have any desire to waste my time on you.


I'm sorry your analogy was bad. No need to start calling names because someone called ya on it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2012)

Anyone agree this should be in general nonsense? Anyways if we didnt have all these laws governing our universe or planet what would we be exactly?


----------



## lyndonguitar (Sep 14, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Anyone agree this should be in general nonsense? Anyways if we didnt have all these laws governing our universe or planet what would we be exactly?



We would be Gods?


----------



## Phusius (Sep 26, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

I love astronomical pictures like this, took Hubble 500 hours to get this shot.


----------



## rangerone766 (Oct 24, 2012)

i'm not a very smart person and this may sound dumb to most of you. but at least it is somewhat entertaining.

2 experiments that prove telepathy/mental connection.

drive or walk around town. find a hot looking chick. now think of all the dirty things you would like to do to her. all the different positions you would use on her, be very explicit. now watch her reaction. does she start to look around? alot of times they do, just a little thing i've noticed while ogling women.

second experiment.

take a walk in the forest and take note of the life you see around you. all the birds and small animals. now go get a gun and try to find some animals to kill. they run and hide. i do believe they can "feel" your intent, just as the women can in the previous experiment.


----------



## Depth (Oct 24, 2012)

rangerone766 said:


> i'm not a very smart person and this may sound dumb to most of you. but at least it is somewhat entertaining.
> 
> 2 experiments that prove telepathy/mental connection.
> 
> ...



This is very good science. Did you consider putting up a two way mirror for these trials?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 24, 2012)

rangerone766 said:


> i'm not a very smart person and this may sound dumb to most of you. but at least it is somewhat entertaining.
> 
> 2 experiments that prove telepathy/mental connection.
> 
> ...



The squires in my backyard didn't get that memo.


----------



## Sadasius (Oct 24, 2012)

D007 said:


> Einsten said "The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education"..
> 
> I am a space fanatic I suppose. I  space games and watch every science channel special, I can sink my teeth into. I'm no genius by any means, but I don't think it takes a genius, to realize how little you know..lol
> 
> ...



I agree very much with this. I think mankind is too small and ignorant to even scratch the surface and I do not think we can as a species even realize the smallest of truths in this universe as we perceive it. I think we are a part of something (physically) much bigger and we are just too small and insignificant to really make any difference. I think we will be long gone before we can gain enough knowledge to pull out of this black hole to propagate on other planets. 

Our perception is what I think is flawed and falls in line with Einsteins quote you have there. What we are taught (especially at a young age) sticks to us if it makes sense at the time and we tend to look at that more then new ideas to further our knowledge base. Our perception of time for instance is significantly flawed. We make a measure of it but that only works here on this planet at a certain pull of gravity. It would be the wrong time on another planet.

A fly see's us moving in slow motion because it's metabolism is so fast. A turtle see's us moving at the speed of light and cannot really train it's eye on us till we stop because we simply move too fast. The perception of time is different not only to these animals, but to planets, planet system etc. 

How are we to understand anything when we cannot even understand what is happening in our own back yard? We as a species are constantly speculating while moving forward hoping for the best. It is as simple as that.


----------



## 3870x2 (Oct 24, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The squires in my backyard didn't get that memo.



Nope, just your sniping skills you gained from BF3.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 30, 2013)




----------



## Hood (Sep 30, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I threw everything I knew about the universe out the first time I dropped acid.
> 
> Science needs to drop more acid.
> 
> They spend their whole lives trying to see things from another view when its a "strawberry" away.



The internet was conceived by acid-dropping academic types in the Bay Area, as were most of the protocols we still use today.  In fact, the entire PC ecosystem sprang from the acid-enhanced imaginations of these guys.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-grim/read-the-never-before-pub_b_227887.html
So if physicists had dropped more acid in the 60's, maybe we'd have time machines by now, or at least molecular "transporters".  Maybe flying cars.  Most cultures have been experimenting with psychoactive substances since recorded history began, so "dope" may be the real mother of invention.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 30, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The squires in my backyard didn't get that memo.



I wish I had squires in my back yard, to tend to my horse and armor.



rangerone766 said:


> i'm not a very smart person and this may sound dumb to most of you. but at least it is somewhat entertaining.
> 
> 2 experiments that prove telepathy/mental connection.
> 
> ...



It's called eye-fucking. Everybody knows when they're getting eye-fucked, because somebody is staring at you all cross-eyed and sweaty.


----------



## m1dg3t (Oct 1, 2013)




----------



## RCoon (Oct 2, 2013)




----------

