Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jcarlson

  1. or he could be looking for love, and since he can't see or smell or touch love, then love doesn't exist.

    more importantly, there is no scientific evidence for it, so it doesn't exist. heh, i'm not sure there's even a scientific definition for it, so yup, it definitly doesn't exist.


    If you want to modify your definition of god to equate it to the feeling of love, a feeling that originates due to chemical processes in the brain, doesn't exist outside of the brain, and is dependent on conscious beings to exist (as opposed to the other way around), be my guest.


    Not much of a god, though.

  2. In this case, once a particle is placed into the field, the particle "understands" , by some means, that she is in the right position and begins emitting force carriers. Symmetrically, the central object source of the field, "understands" that a particle came closer, and begins emitting force carriers. That looks like a nonsense to me.


    At this point, I will have to admit my inadequacy. I really don't know. Perhaps someone with a better background in quantum physics can better explain in layman's terms. I myself would be interested in hearing how this works, if it's known.

  3. We're getting too far into semantics for this to be interesting to me any longer. We're pretty much aligned, but I would use the word "opinion" over the word "evidence" in this case. It's rather possible that I'm just being pedantic right now due to my own personal work in research, though.






    And I think you meant to suggest I was equating terms, not conflating them.

    Again, we're pretty much aligned, so I'm not going to drive any further wedges between us. Enjoy. B)



    Fair enough, I will from this point consider our differences resolved :)

  4. You have to be cautious with this approach. Atheism does not require evidence. It is the rejection of someone else's claim, not the making of their own. The reason we tend to choose atheism is not because evidence suggests atheism is the correct approach... It's because the absence of evidence for theistic claims causes those claims to be wholly uncompelling.


    And I would claim that something that makes an argument uncompelling, thus making the opposing argument more compelling, is "evidence".


    While people like cypress will tell you that you're simply looking in the wrong place, it's somewhat telling that they cannot even tell you where that place is. It's one big circular argument they make full of little more than bald assertions and obfuscation.


    Yes I'm well aware of that :)


    Cypress, if you could please direct me to the "freezer", so I can search for evidence of "fish". Apparently everything known in existence is the "shower".


    Regardless, it's not about evidence. I don't need evidence that santa claus doesn't exist. I don't need evidence that there are not leprechauns dancing at the end of rainbows with a pot of gold. I don't need evidence that there are no such thing a purple unicorns. All I need is to reject them as something I don't find compelling since there is no evidence in their favor.


    Leave it at that, ya know? Show me evidence, I'll change my mind. However, my mind is made up the way it is due solely to the lack of evidence on the other side. I think this is basically what you were trying to say, but your choice of words opened you to rhetorical argument from monkeys who are blinded in the god fog.





    Actually, no. This is definitely false. You could be using a flawed search mechanism, or there could be other variables at play. Regardless, absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of lack.


    I think you are conflating the terms "proof" and "evidence". While proof is certainly evidence, evidence is not always proof. Proof is evidence so compelling that it establishes certainty. Evidence is merely something that supports a claim more than the counter-claim. Do you really mean to argue that the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural god does not support the claim that there is no god more than the claim that there is? I acknowledge that the search mechanism may be flawed or there are variables unknown at play, this is why I do not consider an absence of evidence proof, and it never will be. But it IS evidence.


    I agree that god is an unlikely entity to exist, however, your analogy breaks down. For one thing, we have a very clear measurable definition of a "freezer" and we have a very clear measurable definition of a "fish." We also have very clear exploration parameters when looking in that freezer... a few fee this way, a few feet that way, and a few feet deep. When we don't find the fish, we can be confident there is not one in there.


    And I would agree that the lack of evidence of fish in the freezer is more compelling than the lack of evidence of god in reality is that there are no fish in the freezer and no god in reality, respectively. But that doesn't mean the lack of evidence of god in reality isn't compelling to a lesser degree, and doesn't support the claim that there is no god in reality.


    However, the god concept is painfully lacking in those clear parameters and definitions, hence a similar search cannot be conducted.


    If a theist could possibly tell us that we are looking for a one foot look oval shaped object with two eyes, fins, and scales within a cold 2x2x2 cube, then we could search for god. However, they can't even say what god is in a tangible way, and rely on woo language, hand waving, and non-descript terms. For that reason, I think your comparison breaks down.


    I didn't really intend for my analogy to conform precisely to the search for god, sorry for not making that more clear. I would contend that we have a decent enough definition of our "freezer": objective reality known to humanity, to conduct a search. However you are correct that there is no concise clear definition of god because whenever observation or logic seems to rule out a given definition, the opposing side always changes the goalposts. Because of this, I would say that the lack of evidence of supernatural intervention is more compelling evidence against the Christian god or Zeus than it is against the Deist god, but one thing I've noticed is that every time a theist changes the definition of god to skirt an argument, "god" becomes something less and less like what they want him to be, and more and more like nothing at all.



    I tend to agree whole heartedly with this sentiment. Sure, I may be wrong, but it's highly unlikely that I am. :)


    Exactly :) And you know that it's highly unlikely because of the evidence in favor of your position! How else could you?

  5. I chose atheism for a very simple reason: the evidence weighs heavily in favor of it.


    I believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If we look for something, and we find no evidence of it anywhere, that is evidence that it is not there. If I told someone to go look in my freezer for a fish, and try as they might, while going through my freezer they neither saw, smelt, or felt any fish, that would be evidence, and compelling evidence at that, in favor of the fish not being there.


    Gods can be held to the same standard. The fact that there is not one confirmed instance of something supernatural breaking the natural order of the world at any time in history is compelling evidence of a lack of not just gods, but anything supernatural.


    No, it is not proof. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Evidence merely has to increase the probability of something being true; proof has to make said probability 100%. I acknowledge that the atheistic position may turn out to be wrong, but the weight of the evidence makes it much more statistically likely that it won't, and therefore, as a rational person, to me there is only one logical choice.

  6. I worry seriously about it.

    I cannot accept action at distance without any logical explanation, and the entire field concept is based upon action at a distance.


    As mentionned before, I have the conviction that fields have to be connected with the concept of Time (because distance & space are time-related) and with the concept of scale factor (because it is also space & time related). All 3 together can make some sense.


    To my understanding, according to the Standard Model, at least with regard to the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Forces, there isn't really "action at a distance", forces are "carried" between two particles on bosons such as gluons, W and Z bosons, and photons, respectively.


    You also have to remember that when examining the force field around an object, the vector field in question doesn't actually exist; that is, the particle isn't shooting force carriers randomly out into space in all directions. It is a map of the force vectors that WOULD exist, were a particle in any particular location at that moment. Once a particle is placed in the space the particles exchange force carriers and the force vector described by the field at that particular location is applied to the particle.


    Also remember, even though it may seem "intuitive" that two objects should have to touch to have an effect on each other, even when you physically push something to apply force to it, the "touch" you sense is merely an illusion. The particles making up the atoms in your body never come into actual physical contact with the particles that make up the atoms of the object you are applying force too, they just come very close. In fact, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, they can never "touch", and this, in combination with the electrostatic repulsion of the outer shell electrons of the atoms in your body and the atoms in the object is what causes said object to move.


    If any of this is wrong by the way, feel free to correct me. I'm a simple amateur and I know very well I could be totally misrepresenting all of quantum physics. It just seemed like he has been looking for a more approachable, intuitive, and less technical answer than what has been given, and I was trying to provide one.

  7. This is a "secret message" posted in the Panic! At The Disco journal on their website. I was wondering if anyone here can make sense out of it; if it's a real message or just something that Jon Walker wrote to be funny or something. I'm also interested in how one would solve something like this. I don't have a clue as to how to solve it. (The bolded part is the title and date it was posted, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the "message" or not.)

    The original is here: http://www.panicatthedisco.com/palebird/index.html


    05.17.2007 - The moon is our pocket watch.

    Behold, the forest is blooming. The new summer is approaching us. The water is warm, the air is crisp and the apples are fresh (and crisp as well). Three of me best mates and I are currently working on our new album in the far west regions of New America. I have the whiskey, one has new shoes, one has the moustache and one has the blues. I might have lost my mind but I have found my soul. You might have heard our songs but you haven’t heard our goals, world domination, beginning with the north and moving down along the map. Wait steadily, as you would on Christmas morning. Presents will come and breakfast is the best. If you understand this message then you figured out my phone number. Call me, we will make a plan.

    - Jonathan Jacob Walker - 09.17.1985



    One interesting thing to note is that it mentions seasons and times of year a lot in the note. Starting with the notions of spring/early summer in the first lines, and then winter and christmas in the last few sentences. Perhaps there is also some significance to the notion of "beginning with the north and moving down along the map". Perhaps a reference to a line of longitude, or maybe a metaphor for the way the winter cold moves from the north to the south as the season transistions from summer to winter.


    This could be a way to tie the title into the rest of the note... the moon is at different places at different times of the year. But I'm probably just fishing for red herring here.

  8. Yes, I understand that - Derivative of position is speed, Derivative of Speed is acceleration. Antiderivative of acceleration is speed, and Anti derivative of speed is position.


    But you do that with the SECOND part of the FTC.


    Look here, for example: http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/4/ftc.9/


    What eludes me is not the ultimate goal of the FTC - I get that as I said above - I even understand how it works with net change of "areas".. I can't visualize the change from the f(x) function to the A(x) function (note the "x" is "instead of" the 'b' in the second part.


    This, btw, is different than what my teacher taugh in the sense that the parts are reversed (pt 1 in the pic is 2 in my book, and vice versa). So in this picture, I just can't figure out how part 1 of the theorem - a function "within a function" operates, and what is it good for. Why is this needed...? What you explained, it seems to me, only has to do with the first part.




    Ok.... so you are confused about the equation


    [math]A(x) = \int_a^x f(t)dt[/math]


    and how it implies


    [math]A'(x) = f(x)[/math]




    Ok, this simply follows from the first equation on the page you gave (which you understand, right?)


    Let [math]F[/math] be the anti-derivative of [math]f[/math], then:


    [math]A(x) = \int_a^x f(t)dt = F(x) - F(a)[/math]


    now, since [math]F(a)[/math] is constant, and its derivative is therefore 0:


    [math]A'(x) = F'(x) - 0[/math]


    But since [math]F(x)[/math] is the anti-derivative of [math]f(x)[/math], [math]F'(x) = f(x)[/math], so:


    [math]A'(x) = f(x)[/math]



    Was that helpful?

  9. Is it possible to prove that an equation exists to describe any possible graph?

    Specifically, can an equation exist which yields a graph that, for instance, is identical to a sine wave with a certain magnitude for the x= a to b, then some random exponential graph from b to c, and then maybe some holes (limits) and such? I'm not asking about any specific graph ... I'm just wondering if, short of graphs with infinite, non-repeating patterns, everything that can be drawn on a graph has an equation that corresponds to it.


    Thank you in advance for your thoughts!


    If you're curious as to why I ask this, my girlfriend had a question for me about a homework question for calculus. The question regarded limits and it went a little like this:

    If the limit as f(x) approaches 5 is 2, can f(5)= 4? The answer is yes, because the graph may approach the limit, but have a hole there and leap to another part of the graph, whereat it continues on it's path. I said no, thinking that the only way to get a limit in an equation is to have some undefined point, whereat a certain x value yields an undefined function. If the function is undefined at that value, it cannot, by definition, have a value (4, in the case of my example of f(5)=4).


    My best guess is that the only reason that the answer is "yes" is because graphs can have range-specific functions, e.g.

    for x values between -infinity and 0, f(x) = x + 1

    for x values at 0 or above 0, f(x) = x + 3




    In regards to your second question, about your girlfriends homework, While a function CAN have a limit at an undefined point, it most certainly can also have a limit at a defined point, and the limit L at point c need not equal the value of f©. Indeed, the definition of a limit makes no mention of the value of f© at all!


    The formal definition of a limit [math]\lim_{x\to c} f(x) = L [/math] is for every [math]\epsilon > 0[/math] there exists [math]\delta > 0 [/math] s.t for all [math]x[/math], [math]0 < |x - c| < \delta[/math] implies [math]|f(x) - L| < \epsilon[/math]. The value [math]f©[/math] only starts to matter when discussing continuity at c.

  10. as stated' date=' is there a none intuitive way of solving








    I know from experience that 7pi/4 and 3pi/4 are the solutions, but is there a way to derive it?



    It can be solved geometrically, If I have time tomorrow I might draw it up real quick and post it if no one else beats me to it. Sorry for leaving it like this but I'm tired.

  11. Isn't his axiom 'FIN' in contradiction with the statement "making a measurement in one part of a quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on measurements made elsewhere in the system"? So 'FIN' and 'TWIN' are incompatible in the sense that he uses them.


    In other words' date=' he is not allowing for the non-locality of Quantum mechanics. In fact, I would have said that his 'proof' is in fact a proof of non-locality, via reductio ad absurdum.[/quote']


    Actually, I believe this apparent contradiction is what his theory rests on. In the link it explains how, if the expiriment is conducted within a time T, it would be impossible for the two particles to somehow communicate, but since their total angular momentum is zero, and they will always have opposite spins, the functions that determine the behavior cannot rely on ANY information either of the particles receive during time T, but only on the direction from which the experimenter observes them.

  12. Sure we can idealize the concept of a perfect circle in our mind' date=' a good 360 degrees.


    But is there really such a thing as a perfect circle?


    Even on computer monitors we will use pixels to create a circular formation which, the pixels are not perfectly circular themselves. When you keep going down to a next level you reach atoms and even atoms are not a sphere or a circle.


    They are more of a geometrical shape that is three dimensional with edges, but not a smooth round shape.


    Or are there atoms that are actually circular? How can one actually be sure that it is spherical?[/quote']



    There really isn't a perfect geometrical ANYTHING that exists as a physical object in nature.

  13. Agreed.


    One simplistic way to look at it is:


    No firewall = you're hacked


    Windows or hardware firewall only = You might stop some script kiddies but otherwise you're quite vulnerable.


    Respectable software firewall (ZA or Norton) = That's as good as you are gonna get' date=' not even the FBI can stop every single determined and proffesional hacker, but you are doing your best and it is enough.[/quote']



    I'm pretty sure a dedicated hardware firewall, if configured correctly, is going to be superior to a software firewall.

  14. The general form of a quadratic function is given by:




    where A, B, and C are constants.


    We are given three points, [math]\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),(x_3,y_3)\}[/math]. Our goal is to find A, B, and C in terms of [math]x_1, x_2, x_3, y_1, y_2,[/math] and [math]y_3[/math]. This will allow us to find a particular quadratic function that lies on all 3 points.


    We begin by substituting the first point, [math](x_1,y_1)[/math], into the general equation for a quadratic function, and solving for A.














    Now we substitute [math](x_2,y_2)[/math], this time solving for B.














    Last, we substitute [math](x_3,y_3)[/math], and solve for C.










    Now we substitute the equation for C into the equation for B.


















    Now substitute the equation for C into A.














    Now B into A...












    To find B, substitute the equation for A into the equation for B










    Finally, to find C, substitute A and B into the equation for C.



    C=y_3-\frac{y_2-y_3}{x_2-x_3}-[/math] [math][x_3^2(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+x_3^2(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)[/math] [math]+x_3(x_3+x_2)(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+x_3(x_3+x_2)(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)][/math] [math]/ [(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_2-x_3)-(x_3^2-x_2^2)(x_1-x_2)][/math]


    Now you have your 3 coefficients in terms of the 3 points given, and you should be able to find the equation of your parabola.


    Also I'm pretty sure it will work with 3 points in a straight line as well. The coefficient A will turn out to be 0 and the function will reduce to [math]y(x)=Bx+C[/math]

  15. There is no reason to believe that a black hole is a singularity. Everything inside of the Swartzchild radius (the region where light cannot escape) is inherently inobservable, and so we really have no idea how much space the mass causing the black hole takes up. It could be anywhere from infinately small, to a radius just under that of the Swartzchild radius, and the observable effects would be the same.

  16. (-1/3 )ln[6-3y] = x + C

    boundary cond. when y=3 x=0

    to find C' date=' I substitute

    (-1/3)ln[6-3(3)'] = C

    ok, this is where I'm stuck. Do I take C to be zero in this case.


    ok, lets call this:


    (-1/3 )ln[6-3y] = x + C


    equation A and this:


    (-1/3)ln[6-3(3)] = C


    equation B. To get the value of C you solve the left side of equation B. Then you substitute the value of C into equation A, and you have your particular solution.

  17. hey all!


    I currently use GraphCalc v4.0.1

    It supports 3D graphing' date=' and is a pretty interesting program, however I was wondering if there are any graphing programs that support relational graphs? I find having to create graphs as functions only a bit restrictive.


    an example is z^2 = x^2 + y^2 (a sphere)

    I can't make one with my current graphing calc because it doesnt do non-function graphing.


    If anyone knows of a graphing calculator that can do what I'm proposing, please post a link. BTW - It'd have to be a free one too lol


    Thanks in Advance![/quote']



    Well, usually in these situations you can solve for a value in order to get a function... in the example you gave, for instance:


    [math]z^2 = x^2 + y^2[/math]

    [math]z = \pm \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}[/math]


    You then split this into two functions to get the complete graph:


    [math]z_{1}(x,y) = + \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}[/math]

    [math]z_{2}(x,y) = - \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}[/math]



    The Texas instrument line of graphing calculators is one of the best in my opinion. The Ti-89s are pretty good.

  18. Every proof used has a problem. You are treating 0.999... as a discrete number and comparing it to 1. 0.999... has no value in terms of discrete numbers such as 1. How much is 0.999...? Infinitely close to 1. It is not a discrete number and is not therefore comparable.


    Intuition tells us that 0.999... is less than 1. Arithmetic tells us that 0.999... is equal to 1. However' date=' logic tells us that 0.999... is not arithmetically related to 1 because it is infitecimal. The proofs apply discrete arithmetic to a non-discrete number.


    Now you're goin to prove that 1.000.... = 0.999... with the same silly arithmetic. Stop dividing infinitely, stop adding infinitely. You can't make apple pie from florida oranges.[/quote']


    Logic? Logic tells me that [math].\=(9)[/math] is equal to one. There is a very simple, mathematically rigorous proof for this.


    All real numbers are BY DEFINITION defined by the infinate LIMITS of their decimal representations, not the representations by themselves. Many times the limit and the representation are one in the same, however other times it is not. One blatently obvious case is the set of all irrational numbers: [math]\pi[/math], [math]e[/math], [math]\phi[/math], [math]sqrt(2)[/math], etc, which, if they weren't defined as limits, couldn't be irrational in the first place, because no matter how many decimals you added to the sequence you would still end up with a rational number.


    So with that in mind, let us examine the number [math].\=(9)[/math]


    By definition, this decimal is defined as:



  • 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.