Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/18/22 in all areas

  1. https://news.yahoo.com/rights-violence-problem-184823155.html
    2 points
  2. Hi, I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as : P + None(P) = nothing ( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) ) all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations..
    1 point
  3. I think you must have skipped the half of the arguments in the last 36 pages that didn't support your opinion, or failed to follow the logic in them, while believing your own were fairly robust. Reading this post of yours, Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" quote comes to mind here.
    1 point
  4. You are of course correct, no extraordinary evidence is forth coming. There are some that were so sloppily explained by the air force it reeked of incompetence at least. I often wonder just what would extraordinary evidence look like? Is it reasonable to think we could acquire such evidence on this subject with out intent from the source? I honestly wonder if this subject is going to be limited to circumstantial evidence unless the source, what ever that may be, decides we get such evidence. The comparison to meteorites comes to mind. In the beginning of "science" the experts were quite sure that rocks did not fall from the sky. Even rock falls witnessed by people were dismissed as rocks blown by winds or thrown out of volcanoes. Even a collection of meteorites that was on display at a famous museum were taken off display because the prevailing wisdom decried they could not be extraterrestrial. Of course today we know better, but did the evidence suddenly become extraordinary? No the same evidence was all we had at the time but it became apparent that the debunkers were just that, debunkers, and that rocks falling from the sky could only be explained by rocks falling from the sky. All the other arguments of mistaken eye witnesses, wind blown rocks, and volcanoes simply served to muddy the water for the real explanation. When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn?
    1 point
  5. One problem I often see understanding philosophy is the notion that it is a single discipline, when it is really half a dozen (axiology, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc.), each with its own set of logical and analytical tools. As regards some scientific undertaking, an ethicist and an epistemologist might have very different concerns, and lumping them together would be a muddy mess. The branch that is actually called "philosophy of science" is the one that is usually most relevant here, since it is concerned with how best science can shape methods for observing and understanding the world, evaluate the reliability of theories, and find what are the boundaries of science. If science was your car, PhOS would be the mechanic who understands the car's functioning and how to make repairs and keep it running well. However, if you were wanting to understand the fundamental reality of cars, you might contact the specialist in metaphysics. Or, if you wanted to know where it might be wrong to drive your car, you might contact the ethicist. But mostly, you would be looking to the PhOS specialist. Anyway, main point I'm trying to make is, it's really important not to treat philosophy as some easily demarcated singular field; much better to pick a branch and try to understand that branch.
    1 point
  6. Philosophy has always been a bit of a mystery to me so please take what I say with a grain of salt. The way a philosopher speaks about philosophy and the way laymen speak of philosophy makes it seem like they are talking about two completely different fields of study. It is similar to the way QM sounds like two different fields of study depending on whether you are speaking to a scientist or a layperson. When a scientist says 'as it really is' he is generally speaking of a destination that cannot realistically be achieved, and thus philosophy may seem a bit cracked. But when a philosopher says 'as it really is' he seems (to me) to be speaking of a journey of understanding and exploration. So just as a group of laypeople discussing QM can miss subtleties and have misperceptions go unchallenged, I think it is the same way with philosophy. While what the scientists say about philosophy sounds reasonable, by reading the thoughts of our few resident philosophers I get the feeling that the rest of us are missing something when it comes to understanding what philosophy can really do for us.
    1 point
  7. What is says is that we have a model - a very successful one - where energy is a property. If you want to hypothesize that things are made of energy, feel free to come up with such a model.
    1 point
  8. Just be careful not to equate energy with some kind of substance. You can't have a jug of energy. "Pure energy" is Star Trek, not science. There's always a system, whether it is a particle of matter or a system of fields of some kind, like radiation. The same goes for electric charge. That too is a property of a system. It makes no sense to say that when charges cancel you are left with "nothing". What you are left with is an uncharged system of some sort. That is not nothing.
    1 point
  9. I find pretty much the same problem with any proposition including the words 'as it really is.' As if there's some bogus way, and then there's the 'really real' one. That's as much as I can say without actually reading the book.
    1 point
  10. Steady on. Particles are not "made of" energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Particles have energy and mass, but they are not made of them, any more than they are made of spin, momentum or electric charge. You can say mass is energy at rest, if you like, but you have always to be aware that these are just properties of some system. Particles do not annihilate into energy. They annihilate into radiation - which has energy, along with other properties (frequency, amplitude, angular momentum....).
    1 point
  11. Hi Moontanman. I have only watched the first video thus far, and what I do and always have supported is the further investigations into the small percentage of those UFO's/UAP's that have no known explanation at that time. I also have certainly not gone into this subject with as much vigour as you have and am really only aware of a few of the more prominent ones. Certainly the couple highlighted in the first video, and the much discussed Nimitz sightings, do not really raise my interest too much, or change my feelings that at this time, we have no "extraordinary evidence" of Alien visitations or contact. To my mind, so far the most unexplainable incident remains that of the Story of Children in Zimbabwe Encountering a UFO and Alien beings. I would certainly like to see more official investigations into that incident. My general feelings though have not changed, in that as a great man once said, "ëxtraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence", and the fact that the two prohibitive aspects preventing Alien/interstellar/galactic content, are time and distance. https://phys.org/news/2022-05-congress-ufos-extraterrestrials.html
    1 point
  12. A lot of water collection [where legal] and storage retrofits are already available, and there is a ton of information on grey water recycling. The Earthship home designs were developed in the desert and are entirely self-sufficient - as I believe every house should be, for survival necessities, and every community should be for conveniences and comforts.
    1 point
  13. The youth accused of killing 10 at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., had undergone a psychiatric evaluation, ordered by New York state police after making a school shooting threat last year. Somehow, that didn't trigger any legal safeguards that would have prevented him from purchasing an assault rifle, or crossing into another state to purchase larger magazines for it (which are illegal in NY). Even though his threats were specifically about doing a mass shooting. (Reopening this thread after three years, I wish it was to talk about what has changed in those three years. Not much, apparently.)
    1 point
  14. There have been so many puzzles in theoretical physics, and so many more people working on it than ever before, that almost every conceivable idea of that kind has already been tried. Dirac tried with his sea of negative-energy electrons, but it was proven that Dirac's vacuum would be unstable, and wouldn't last. A vacuum in quantum field theory with negative-energy quanta is nothing like our universe's.
    1 point
  15. Dirac did, 90 years ago: Dirac sea - Wikipedia
    1 point
  16. Right. That’s all well and good. Hard to disagree with any of that and we’re aligned. Do me this favor, though: Kindly please explain how any of that is even remotely relevant to me asking for confirmation that textbook sizes truly have increased over the years and decades… and pushing for this premise to be confirmed before seeking explanations from us about why they did. Go ahead. I’ll wait… and just so we’re clear, inspired comments about anecdotes aiding in scientific progress throughout history won’t suffice, regardless of how many you introduce.
    1 point
  17. So I repeat once again, because you don't seem to think. I've written this 3 times now. SO PLEASE, READ AND THINK. Your model : particle = "matter" with properties " mass" and "energy". I understand that. Thank you. That's how you see things. And you have a lot of people that write books that think the same. OK. So you think there is something called "matter" that exists. and IT CAN have mass and energy. NOW. I have 2 proton. SO that's "2 proton matter" what ever that means (and "rest mass" property ). I accelerate them. SO That "2 proton matter" that have "a lot kinetic energy" as properties, (like their position, speed, that are also properties. I know what a property is thank you, I have 25 years of software development) THEY MEET. Now you have 1000 particles. That's " 1000 particle matter" and "some mass and energy" (that is according to the conservation of mass energy). IF "particle matter" is something that "EXISTS", where does the "1000 particle matter" comes from ? Was it in the two proton ? Does "2 proton matter"/ 1000 = 1000 heavy particles ? I'm sorry, you're saying that "something" exists by itself, but that thing doesn't obey a conservation law. So maybe you're just wrong. (By the way, if you knew logic, you would now that if something is "constant" it's usually indicate that it's not a "true" property, but the result of a law. Like PI isn't a property of circle of radius 1... that's too meta.. in that case, we can agree that a property is an aspect of the way something exists and interacts with the rest of the universe)
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.