All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. From Wikipedia: Even if you are right, if there once was a star burst time, several billions of years ago, were there so many stars with about the same lifetime (~ starting mass), that happened to blow up alltogether right now? Maybe, but it seems a bit unlikely to me. I would be happy to hear some more (scientifically based!) speculations that explain this multitude of planetary nebulae, or a complete different explanation of what these rings are.
  3. It is functionally wrong: just looking into the brain, how neurons fire dependent on other neurons or sense input, will never show you what a decision is, just as you will never know the rules of chess if you only analyse how flip-flops of a chess computer change their values dependent on each other. The flip-flops do not play chess, the computer does. In the same manner, the flipping over of a scale is not a decision. Say a stone roles downhill. First question: does it want to roll down, or is it forced to roll down (by gravity)? Now imagine there is lying a bigger stone in its way, and the rolling stone is stopped by it. Is the bigger stone blocking the way of the stone? Is the stone forced to stop? Or is it saved for gravity by the bigger stone? I assume you agree such questions are nonsensical. But it is just as nonsensical to call the tipping of a scale a decision. It is just a physical process: there are no 'arguments' in favour or against tipping over. Coercion can only occur between 2 different things: but there is no separation between the functioning brain and consciousness. Again, as in the other thread, your viewpoint only makes sense in a dualistc world view. You are right insofar as that not liking the consequences (no free will, no responsibility, no justification for punishment) is not an argument against an honest scientific world view. Still one can use our practice of praising and punishment to ask a philosophical question: is some view of free will a precondition to justify this practice, and if so, in which meaning? I would say yes. But libertarian free will (e.g. a view based on a 'free soul' reigning over the brain) we can exclude, because it does not agree with science. But I am convinced that a compatibilist concept of free will fits the bill. (That is e.g the reason for the subtitle of Daniel Dennett's book: Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.)
  4. Eise

    Split from AI sentience

    I am not sure if I understand you. You agree that consciousness at least for certain animals was advantageous (specially human animals)? I'd have no quarrel if you did. This is, IMO, broadly accurate and largely synonymous with calling it an emergent phenomenon (as I previously described it many times here and elsewhere). You should have a quarrel with it. I think I already gave the argument against it, in one of our previous discussions (it was about an article on free will). Writing about mental phenomena would be selfcontradictory: explaining that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, i.e. consciousness is caused by the brain but in itself causes nothing, can not account for an article that explains consciousness as epiphenomenon. A philosophical zombie, an organism that works and behaves exactly like us, but really has no consciousness, would never write an article in which it tries to explain consciousness: it does not know what it is, per definition. There is also a related huge problem with epiphenominalism: in what metaphysical domain does this consciousness exactly exist? If it is our normal material world, it cannot explain how some subsystem is causally effected by the brain, but has no causal effects in itself. The only way out is to propose a domain that is not material, but then you are back to dualism. My viewpoint is clear: the brain does does not cause consciousness, a class of brain processes is consciousness. The capability of an organism to picture its environment, its place in that environment, and evaluate how both can change dependent on its possible actions is consciousness: it needs a form of imagination. So there is no separation between 'me' and 'my brain'. That means also there is no 'me' that can be coerced by the brain, because 'me' is exactly that brain. Both extreme forms of incompatibilism, libertarian free will and hard determinism only make sense in a dualistic world view. That is the point where a neuroscientist, saying humans have no free will, goes astray: his view is still dualistic.
  5. naitche

    What is faith?

    I should have have included the 3rd approach, Of viewing every thing as either self ( identity, ) or environment ( the conditions we have ) Comments made by Eric H and others including myself seem to indicate that reduction is not always a result of faith. But the idea of blocking or shielding seems to hold. If conditions are subjective limitations, over come through recognition and response, I'm going to say purpose gives direction (or dimension) . Direction and purpose are inherent to biological identity for its integrity. Much of its condition is also inherent, which affects Response. So maybe accepting or taking in conditions beyond the self , Conditions Response. Redirects response and purpose to upholding integrity of the secondary identity, and the conditions its founded on. The most beneficial manifestation of 'Faith' in the Religious sense, could be to block that secondary conditioned response. Keep it open to diverse direction, and ability of response. Still gives me some concept of what a multiverse might be. Needless to say, mathematics are not my strength and might explain why I have so much trouble untangling and expressing the values I need @Strange
  6. Today
  7. ! Moderator Note No model, no testable predictions, no support, despite multiple requests. IOW, closed. Don't bring this topic up again.
  8. swansont

    My Theory on dark matter

    ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. We require some sort of model, testable prediction and/or evidence for this discussion, as per the speculations guidelines.
  9. The fact that you think it is impossible is irrelevant and, given that we can measure the effects, a little childish. As you keep posting more nonsense with no attempt to provide a model or any evidence, I will request this thread is closed.
  10. Again the many observations and model determine that you are wrong. And with regards to time, have you heard of time dilation? Time will run slower wherever gravity caused by spacetime warpage in the present of mass/energy is strongest, as seen in an outside frame of reference..
  11. Affirmative, revision complete. Derivation of neutrino mass from neutrino scattering: [math]\;[/math] [math]\theta[/math] - scattered neutrino angle [math]\phi[/math] - electron recoil angle [math]E_{\nu i}[/math] - initial neutrino total energy [math]E_{\nu f}[/math] - final neutrino total energy [math]E_{e}[/math] - electron total energy [math]E_{\nu}[/math] - neutrino total energy Scattered particles rebounding with relativistic momentum have total energy: [math]E_{e} = \gamma_{e} m_{e} c^{2} \; \; \; \; \; \; E_{\nu} = \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} c^{2}[/math] Where [math]m_{e}[/math] and [math]m_{\nu}[/math] are the particle rest masses. [math]\gamma_{e}[/math] and [math]\gamma_{\nu}[/math] are the Lorentz factors. (ref. 1) [math]\;[/math] Observational measurements of both particle total energy and velocity, it is possible to calculate the particle rest masses [math]m_{e}[/math] and [math]m_{\nu}[/math]: [math]\boxed{m_{e} = \frac{E_{e}}{\gamma_{e} c^{2}}} \; \; \; \; \; \; \boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{E_{\nu}}{\gamma_{\nu} c^{2}}} \tag{0}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]E_{e} \sin \phi = E_{\nu f} \sin \theta \tag{1}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]E_{e} \cos \phi + E_{\nu f} \cos \theta = E_{\nu i} \tag{2}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Isolate [math]E_{e} \cos \phi[/math] from equation (2): [math]E_{e} \cos \phi = E_{\nu i} - E_{\nu f} \cos \theta \tag{3}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Divide equation (1) by equation (3) for an expression for [math]\tan \phi[/math]. [math]\;[/math] [math]\tan \phi = \frac{E_{\nu f} \sin \theta}{E_{\nu i} - E_{\nu f} \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} - \cos \theta} \tag{4}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Acquire a substitution for [math]\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}[/math] to eliminate [math]E_{\nu f}[/math]. Use the Compton equation, which can be rearranged to yield [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}}[/math] in terms of [math]\lambda_{\nu i}[/math] alone. [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} \tag{5}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\lambda_{\nu f}}{\lambda_{\nu i}} = \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} = 1 + \frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{e}} \left(1 - \cos \theta \right) = 1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} c^2}{\gamma_{e} m_{e} c^2} \left(1 - \cos \theta \right) = 1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \left(1 - \cos \theta \right) \tag{6}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Substituting equation (6) into equation (4) and eliminate [math]E_{\nu i}[/math] and [math]E_{\nu f}[/math] in favor of [math]m_{\nu}[/math] alone. [math]\tan \phi = \frac{\sin \theta}{\frac{E_{\nu i}}{E_{\nu f}} - \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \left(1 - \cos \theta \right) - \cos \theta} = \frac{\sin \theta}{\left(1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right)\left(1 - \cos \theta \right)} \tag{7}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Utilizing a trigonometric identity produces the desired result, specifically: [math]\frac{1 - \cos \theta}{\sin \theta} = \tan \left(\frac{\theta}{2} \right) \tag{8}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Substituting this trigonometric identity into equation (7) results in: [math]\left(1 + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right) \tan \phi = \cot \frac{\theta}{2} \tag{9}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Solve for neutrino rest mass [math]m_{\nu}[/math]: [math]\tan \phi + \frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \tan \phi = \cot \frac{\theta}{2} \tag{10}[/math] [math]\;[/math] [math]\frac{\gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \tan \phi = \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2} - \tan \phi \right) \tag{11}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Electron-neutrino scattering neutrino rest mass: [math]\boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{\gamma_{e} m_{e} \cot \phi}{\gamma_{\nu}} \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2} - \tan \phi \right)} \tag{12}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Nuclear-neutrino scattering neutrino rest mass: [math]\boxed{m_{\nu} = \frac{\gamma_{n} m_{n} \cot \phi}{\gamma_{\nu}} \left(\cot \frac{\theta}{2} - \tan \phi \right)} \tag{13}[/math] [math]m_{n}[/math] - nuclear rest mass [math]\;[/math] Electron interaction neutrino scattering angle [math]\theta[/math]: [math]\boxed{\theta = 2 \operatorname{arccot} \left(\frac{\left(\gamma_{e} m_{e} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} \right) \tan \phi}{\gamma_{e} m_{e}} \right)} \tag{14}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Neutrino interaction electron recoil angle [math]\phi[/math]: [math]\boxed{\phi = \arctan \left(\frac{\gamma_{e} m_{e} \cot \frac{\theta}{2}}{\gamma_{e} m_{e} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}} \right)} \tag{15}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Nuclear interaction neutrino scattering angle [math]\theta[/math]: [math]\boxed{\theta = 2 \operatorname{arccot} \left(\frac{\left(\gamma_{n} m_{n} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu} \right) \tan \phi}{\gamma_{n} m_{n}} \right)} \tag{16}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Neutrino interaction nuclear recoil angle [math]\phi[/math]: [math]\boxed{\phi = \arctan \left(\frac{\gamma_{n} m_{n} \cot \frac{\theta}{2}}{\gamma_{n} m_{n} + \gamma_{\nu} m_{\nu}} \right)} \tag{17}[/math] [math]\;[/math] Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread? [math]\;[/math] Reference: Wikipedia - Lorentz factor: (ref. 1) Wikipedia - Compton scattering - Derivation of the scattering formula: Physics 253 - Compton Scattering - Patrick LeClair Orion1 - Neutrino mass from Fermi-Dirac statistics...: Science News - Neutrinos seen scattering off an atom’s nucleus for the first time:
  12. That is what I can not really grasp. The recognition you shared is meaning, that mass can impact the fabric of space-time, which we can recognize as gravity. If space can be impacted by mass than time is impacted by mass. Time gives the age of the Universe, so that fundamental information could be impacted, through gravity by mass. I think that is impossible. Gravity I speculate what happens to Energies and Matters Space (path) and Time (velocity) in the presence of mass.
  13. jimmydasaint

    Help Needed on Science Friendly Software

    Superb - I have to check this out. Thank you. Hope it is royalty free.
  14. CharonY

    How did Theranos get started?

    Tbf, this is true for a lot of those folks. Investors are rarely interested in the technical stuff. It is telling that she targeted tech investors and not do much pharm.
  15. Ghideon

    My Theory on dark matter

    It sounds like the idea is not matching what is observed, see for instance. Observations of colliding galaxy clusters show, as far as I know, that the effects of gravity lensing is not necessarily aligned with the location of baryonic.
  16. I had the same issue myself a few years ago when I first came here to the forums, I had it mixed up like your post above. Consider this, Gravity is what happens to spacetime geometry in presence of mass. Gravity is not mass, gravity itself is the bending and warping of spacetime and we perceive it as humans as a change in weight.
  17. Lizwi

    What Science Does to me

    Depends on your future career, what career do you want in future
  18. naitche

    What is faith?

    Yes, thank you.
  19. Christoph Pachoa

    My Theory on dark matter

    Spacetime is potentially the combined information of all the infinite fields woven together or some role player in it, and we can see from gravitional waves that matter and gravity can interact with spacetime. With one interaction proven it is also possible that the density of spacetime and or all the fields is greater around supermassive bodies such as galactic center black holes or star clusters allowing for gravity to have a stronger effect on the formation and binding of galaxies than we’ve expressed with math based on spacetime and fields having no or the wrong value and function. The increased density would create a differentiation from galactic centers gravity and the edge of the galaxy, there’s already the relativity of time potentially an expression of field or spacetime density as the fields are information and energy and as denser closer to the black hole the information can be processed and transferred through states or through expressions up or down in direction giving us the increase in times duration as your closer to supermassive bodies. Because of density everything happens faster yet at the same relative rates. Any feedback is welcome just an aspiring theoretical astrophysicist trying to learn and grow. Thank you
  20. Okay so it's just 1540/11 million. Got it, thanks!
  21. brickman7713

    What factor does the amplitutde change?

    I do now, figured it out, thanks!
  22. Yesterday
  23. Lisa445

    Using a vaporizer: Dangerous?

    Well. it's not "entirely harmless", it's just less harmful than smoking (that was the reason I switched to vaporization a year ago). I usually read sites with the newest researches such as (it's US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health) or (it's on vaping and quitting smoking - found it last year while quitting).
  24. I have seen nothing in what You have so far said, that shows your hypothetical invalidates GR, or makes verifiable predictions above and beyond GR. Science/cosmology on the other hand, has recently supported two predictions of GR that stems from its equations over the last couple of years...Gravitational waves and BH's. If in your first statement you are somehow inferring that the universe is expanding faster then light [is this what you mean by c2 ?] then that can be explained... ... and also the universal speed limit of "c" applies to anything with mass.
  25. StringJunky

    shape of concrete drill bits

    Not what you really want but you could look at the manufacturers sites and read their blurb behind their designs. If you look at the most expensive ones vs the budget ones you can see why the former might be better and the function of each aspect. For instance, good drills are double fluted with a high number of turns in the spiral for more efficient clearance and also sharper edges on the spiral so that the hole sides are cut cleaner, like a revolving chisel. The tungsten tip in good SDS bits often have a cross-shaped cutting edge so that the hole face is chipped finer and faster, which can lead to easier clearance. I like the Black and Decker Bullet tips for hammer drills, which have tips that are concave-pointed as opposed to straight-pointed, which is the norm. They seem to punch a hole better as opposed to just scraping a hole out and getting hot, like the conventional tips. I can do harder material with those bullet bits in a DIY battery hammer drill that I can't do with conventional bits... AND they can be used again and again! I don't know anything about tungsten quality, so that might matter as well.
  26. jfoldbar

    shape of concrete drill bits

    im a tradie who has spent his life with all kinds of tools. we often take for granted the thought that goes into designing most of these tools. so i was drilling heaps of holes into stone last week. something ive done many times but not really thinking bout it. i tried a different drill bit and was surprised how different it was. so then i got thinking about the science behind drill bit design and how i can learn more about it. after all, knowledge means being able to better choose the right tool for the job. ive tried to find a youtube vid about this but cant. specifically id like to learn,for example, why/how the spirals are different shapes and angles, and the tungsten is different on different stone/concrete bits. can anyone steer me towards a video or something. only really about the tungsten drill bits.
  27. I think we all know what "bit" means. But you said "a bit of information" which, by itself is meaningless. Now, when are you going to present your mathematical model?
  1. Load more activity