lakmilis

I could elaborate on several paths of execution or strategy, but I think it is simplest to leave it as it is. Since no one is replying with any mathematical input, this is one for the future. However. Should someone wish to attempt solutions, I would a discrete relation R: x <-> y, such that with a,b,c in Z(+): if aRb and bRc, then there is no aRc. I think ajb would have a crack at this, usually, if he is still around.

Hmmm, used to be quite intelligent chaps and lasses on here.. where they all gone? :/ I don't have enough time to solve this currently. Looking for free expertise from SFN! ,) Ah .. it is clear, that we always look back and cherish the old times, since it was in a state of less entropy aye.. generally speaking.

Ya.. that is exactly what I said about that plonker in the chair. Erm Stephen Hawkings or so.

Hi there, I haven't been on here for almost a decade but I was wondering if someone could have some ideas on a binary (ternary would can also be acceptable) , discrete metric which is intransitive, that is fully, not partly, i.e. for all x,y,z: xRy ^ yRz => !(xRz). I see various ideas in topologies which are not dense and so on but it must be a discrete metric function. I been brainstorming for a good while but I can't quite come up with a solid solution, so ideas are very welcome.

Right.. Hawkings out with a book again? I don't think I'm going ot bother more with his books. After reading one or two... I am sure he is a great physicist and mathematician but it can't be said the same of him in terms of philosophy unfortunately. Thus if anythign interesting comes out of the books, I am sure I will be able to pick it up through other channels. That he would come with something along the lines as you guys put forward here is not a surprise at all About that last irreducibility syllogism there Michel... Once my mother called me for the 'answer' on a discussion she and a friend had on 'God is eternal thus he always has been' and 'if God created the universe, who created God then' classical debate. I sent them a quick 'treaty' in return the following week (which they unfortunately didn't understand hehe) which first 'sanitised' the concept God some more; To give a little summary: what might God be? -whatever it is, it can exist, or not, if so is it an 'intelligence' or is there nothing or what. (I went on to argue that in any case, what is true, is true (no god or god bla bla), What we can say is with universe comes time (U => t (again, let us disregard further sanitation of what time might be). OK I removed the whole thing, as logical arguments don't belong in science right ? (pun intended). (I mean logic could go to say philosophy and not in physics). No but let's rather say, taking the concept of time before/outside of an universe (I do not remember if I accounted for closed or open universe), there is something or nothing.. changed by inferring the word God -> Eternity and then reduced Eternity to either nothing or something (or everything whatever.. WHAT it would be was more irrelevant to the question). I then approached the concept of causality they were discussing after equating both their concepts as eternity and proposed a sceptical nothing. As since the universe is everything, than anything preceding it can only be 'no thing'. Ye, added the causality of eternity or eternal cycles into an equivalent statement and concluded they were really talking about the same thing, and which the word God, confusing them due to religious dogma, should be at a basic level, seen as 'eternity'. hehe. Either way, it shut them up Cypress, the very notion of 'creation' is that it would not really be explainable before. These things we throw out is as good as it gets with human semantics. All knowledge is based upon the notion of empirical repetition in Nature..The natural laws. Just like they break down so far in a BH (Kerr/Nordstrom), they do when we attempt to squeeze it all into a zero-point. I am pretty sure the BIG BANG theory goes down to like infinitesimally small approaching a zero point but not instantiating it at that very starting point, as it could not be allowed so, according to physical laws. True Skaffen. when I first read up on (special) relativity when I was 14 I think, I instantly wrote some pages in reply to some of it's arguments back to school. I was also arguing for why there could not be a multiverse/multiverses. However, I only later learned about 3+ dimensional spaces and/or the other concepts of general relativity. I think my reply back then was naive, in the sense it only dealt with a sub part ofthe problem, however it sitll stands as such. The important thing in it, was the claim that dimensions are hierarchical and can not exist independently of compound dimensions. Thus, this implies really a universe. That it could have an infinite number of [time] states hehe which some popular scientific ideas floating aorund propose is not dealt by it. But I do not think time as a dimension in Minkowski space is the final say on 'time'. Anyway, these tings are good to speculate about; certainly sells Hawkings some books for dosh! x

Hi.. I just spoke to someone who was really is?/was really important to me; I mentioned something and I came across the scienceforums again and I see this post.. and LOL .. now usually I think I can rememeber that skeptic is a reasonable person.. but wait... if one answers a test (regardless of its validity), at the fastest possible time skeptic claims, (a universal highest speed from nerves, muscles , and thought), one gets 118 , when one chooses all the right answers... so just how did we get like loads of various higher scores? by doing the wrong ones???

Geo, your idea is correct.. in a larger time scale then we consider regular, you speak of rocks flowing.. they behave as liquids... no they behave as liquids in their time range they indded are liquids and particles in the time range they are particles... sounds familiar? hmm , if this analogy would hold we would have particles so minute compared to protons as a rock to a liquid behaviour over your 'geological' time. However, your argument holds perfectly fine. answers were somewhat unclear in this post tbh (including this of course, don't stray ofF course!

all answers are so intriguing as they all have correct descriptions. What is interesting though is the synergy of them and your description too. Although you were wrong in the assumption, you still imagined a carrier, a medium to carry off the heat which moontanman mentions and even insane alien's idea. radiation , a wave and particle.. as a particle... the answer makes 'sense''; however, with the wave model one will think so to be able to work BOTH as particle and wave, there must be some kind of media (hence , why (a)ether was an idea). So your question is a classic question, which really has with the intution of solving this problem of equivocal yin-yang ability of particle/wave behaviour However, edit: wow, half the message disappeared due to touchpad selection by moving sigh

lol well coke two things.. that pun comic strip made me laugh... if you don't get it... well, that's kind of the point of it... the guy pondering afterwards.. due to randomness... like eg. my 'no pun intended'. Here's your answer... check the date of the post (any other day but april fool's day... perhaps... 'no offence' would be the actual term where 'no pun intended' was used). lak hope you are happy cocaine or coca cola

sigh. Schwarzchild holes do not form naturally. Yes, Kerr holes or even Kerr-Newman holes are the naturally occurring celestial ones. People always* hypothesize over these SR things.. double sigh. IF something could cross an event horizon and disregarding the *actual* grav. tide effects etc. then sure, you could send a non-angualr momentum and non charged object and consider effects on that possibly Schw. Artificial BHs if we ever create them certainly could be SR. not natural ones. big no no.

cody: There is more to it really. The persons were on a boat or so and had no food, they were originally 4. The other two (mostlikely) one day said the 4th person had fallenoverboard and served the personwho killed himself once the meat of the 4th person. They claimed this was catfish. When theperson tried it and realized it was not catfish, he killed him/herself. Let's assume it was his/hers spouse x The answer paranoia to thechief who let the man go is correctas a person said: You will kill me slowly. It coulf also have been :I will die slowly . Why? If the person will dieslowly andclaims so, he is speaking truth ifhedies slowly but that was only if he was lying, so he must be telling truth, however, then he would die quickly andsoislying. Russell's paradox.Sorry abt broken spacebar. anti enemy: Iwould takeapictureoftheduckandscan it in my materiareplicator.com

coke, what exactly do you envision or mean by next to pure energy itself? What is pure energy?In which density does that energy manifest itself in? Pure energy is a somewhat conceptual idea... we only know pure energy density through actual things.. eg. energy contained in antimatter... or in matter or in steam, etc. etc. We know 'pure' energy as radiation for example.. but then what is the highest value of frequency? infinity? a finite number? again, your wording is a bit off. Still, sorry, this was ages ago and somewhat off topic. To get back, why does one have to imagine this and necessarily having to be a bomb.. sigh.. humans.... Anyway, thebomb thing is an engineering problem alongwith the physicists. A containment is certainly possible. Efficiency is of essence; this was always known. So is tit even of any point to create a bomb.. which is so volatile it could even annihilate a portion of wherever you are? God forbid (to use a classic wording). But rather , can someone come up with alternative ideas of 'actual'meaningful scientific use like say, well, how about if... (then of coursesomeone mentions rather using it as the detonator for a nuclear bomb, making me sigh even more but ok). The gravitational force works in all ways the same with antimatter? nn

What you are talking about is the continuum; it being discrete or not. We generally say the ocntinuum is continous, although indeed there is a ' logical; inconsistency with a continous continuum and our intuition. eg. how is a body realyl finite? Calculating volume or area in mathematics in calculus, one takes discrte subintervals toweards infinity, however it still does not become continous as such. Infinities always have been somewhat irrational and are kind of the reason why mathematical models are models.. not reality (they map reality though pretty much perfectly or we disprove them and improve them). A colleague of mine , or rather a former mentor, works in research of partial metrics, a discrete continuum, where a self distance of a point is not necessarily 0. Hence it is a more general metric than the metrics we employ in a Minkowski continuum for example. I understand why you think about it and I can give you a hint.. You will find that any N-dimensional entity converges to an orthogonal N+1 dimension. (this is metaphysics too if you will employ it to reality so I won't say more). For more mathematical understanding look up differential calculus, topology/manifolds, metrics and continuum. (Also eg,. Minkowski space to get it back into physics/GR, etc.) . Riemann is an interesting mathematician to link up to that in this aspect. lak Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, this has a little to do with Xeno's? Zeno's? paradox and the real line.. again infinites. Anyway.. how does motion come about.. Well... science describes, does not explain as such (it does in subcausalities) but we do not have the ability to realyl ' explain' inertia, thus motion is not so easy to say why , rather how. How being enegy differentials lead to non equilibirum energy states, leading to a reaction which manifests itself through realignment according to physical laws (in which we have described as far as we know in its entirety on a classical level). Work is constantly being doen though on quantum levels and there is always speculation if GR will hold more new 'rules' in macros ettings we do not understand or not observed enough. (Dark mass/energy, black holes, etc).

ok... will go back and read all the fancy imagery postd after post 1.. but WHY right angle you say? Well , right angles (orthogonalism is inherently how we could sub divide the prima materia.. the perceivable world.. i.e. the world defined by our 5 exoteric senses given we are not disabled), give us the way to ddivide it further into its 3 constituents... HEY .. welcome mathematics (geometry modelling). Why does it happen to be 90 and not 120 or 213? Well.. this is because of the solar system.. sun and moon... the good ol' Babylonians divided the year into 360 days and also did that to the repeating pattern.. which the circle represented... voila.. out came the 90 degrees being 360/4. Nothing revolutionary there kid, in fact.. if we would meet aliens somewhere... giving ANY description in terms of ' degrees' would be localised to our planet and its solar system... any smart geometer (cheers ajb), would never attempt to explain our angles and divisions in angles in this method, but with PI. or radians... PI is universal.. babylonioan angles are local to tellus. If I told a pink dotted alpha centurian.. hey.. look a circle is divided into 60 degrees.. I would not just have a lingual problem, but a semantic problem as hell.. he would never agree... but if I so neatly started developing our common translation with taking a diameter of a circle.. then putting it around the cirumference and then wrote [MATH] /pi [/MATH] , he would go OH YEAH.. im with you on that one.. we call it donkeyballs (as an example, replace donkeyballs with predatorian sign language if you wish). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedcircle divided into 360 sorry. /pi = \pi

try thinking about it in terms of zen-buddhism and I will give you one of those things to think about like the sound of a one handed clap: Time is the perception of movement. (Hope it helps you in a non rational way )