Itoero

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Good

About Itoero

  • Rank
    Organism
  • Birthday 12/12/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Belgium
  • Interests
    Mountains
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Everything
  • Occupation
    I take care for the pigeons on the roof.

Recent Profile Visitors

9927 profile views
  1. science is subfield of philosophy

    I was not the one who came up with 'object'. Isn't an apparent horizon also a set of coordinates? Well, in those cases it is true. Depending on how you are defining "interaction". Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more 'objects' have an effect upon one another. When light doesn't travel through 'empty space' the photons interact with particles. There is no evidence to back up the idea that gravit. lensing and doppler shift happen without interacting of photons with particles. Ok, but then you proof the validity of logical ideas with logic. .. .then you have logic². You can say cosmology is based on evidence but it's not scientific since it's not empirical evidence you get via experiments. I think cosmology is about interpreting measurements. Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? -->To get to the same side! I think it's necessary to better categorize science, by making a definite distinction between philosophical science and empirical science. Many top scientists believe in the correctness of interpretations/research concerning physics. When one top(or famous in his area/country) scientist believes in something and has a convincing way of 'promoting' it then you can be sure many people think the same way. And when you believe in something then you are not going to research other interpretations. So the kind of work, done by scientists, might change since their study field will be less dependent on the area they live in. Those theorie are interpretations. Their are even interpretations off the copenhagen interpretation. They don't have to study anything extra. Things just have to better categorized. Who decides which logic is correct and which is not?
  2. The definition of nothingness exactly

    The meaning of 'nothing' changes due to the context it's in. And our idea of vacuum and quantum vacuum changes due to new measuring devices/interpretations.
  3. science is subfield of philosophy

    Ok, but when is something an object in physics? That's true but all the interpretation are interpretations of evidence. You can't use an interpretation as evidence. If you narrow science down...don't you then just acknowledge that many things in the world of science are philosphical? People said how the properties of light change without interacting of photons, as examples they gave doppler shift and gravitational lensing. I prefer not to get banned. (The things I said in the status I said because I'm very funny and wanted to see if you have humor.) Most/Many people think logic dictates there is a god or something supernatural.
  4. science is subfield of philosophy

    When is it an object and when not? An apparent horizon points IMO to it not being an object. Many things in 'science' are not backed up by scientific evidence: String theory, Holographic principle, cosmology, no-hair theorem, Copenhagen interpretation, Many worlds inter., Consistent histories inter., Ensemble interpretation, Broglie–Bohm theory, Relational quantum mechanics, Transactional interpretation, Stochastic mechanics, Objective collapse theories, Consciousness causes collapse, Many minds, Quantum logic, Quantum information theories, Modal interpretations of quantum theory, Time-symmetric theories, Branching space-time theories, .... Why wouldn't you categorize those things? (by making science a subfield) That's generally because a philosopher is differently educated then a physicist. A chemist will also find it difficult to solving problems of physicists. I know science is not a subfield atm...but it should be. Science is a too broad field. No. I mentioned it to show what people consider ' science' is often not science. The main idea was that people believe the properties of light can change without interacting with the photons....which is a philosophical idea. I know what you mean but it's wrong since you can't 'proof' the validity of a philosophical study. Whether it contains truth is a subjective opinion.
  5. Recommended Religious Reading

    The title is trop provoking but it's a well chosen title nevertheless. For example: islamterrorism is not causal related with Islam. But islam forms a breeding ground which creates injustice and poisons morality...which 'promotes' terrorism.
  6. Recommended Religious Reading

    Not all human injustice is due to religion but a lot of it is. Do you deny that child-genital mutilation, child sexual abuse(by priests), islam-terrorism, islam sexual terrorism, injustice concerning apostates/atheists (islam+christiannity) is because of religion? Imo the believe in god(s) was necessary, but not anymore.
  7. Recommended Religious Reading

    Christopher Hitchens was 'famous' to talk against the child-genital mutilation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision Religion does help people, but that's peanuts compared to all the injustice and suffering it causes. "God is not needed: How religion slows down/blocks moral evolution" by Me
  8. Recommended Religious Reading

    god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
  9. the Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem

    I said: The interaction electron/atoms - photons causes the refraction and is called scattering. ---> This means the interaction electron/atoms - photons is called scattering and this interaction causes refraction. Many people definitely know it but its not always called scattering. When people say photons/atoms cause refraction then they acknowledge scattering causes refraction....they just don't call it 'scattering'. People that know of the theorem will call it scattering and people that study optical physics call it scattering. Scattering implies a wave or particle(s) change in direction due to an interaction. The change in direction is not necessary measurable/observable. Here is a nice explanation: " Refraction occurs when a large number of dipoles scatter coherently. Each individual dipole scatters light in response to the incident radiation in (almost) all directions, but when you have a large collection of scatterers, each one scattering in many directions, you have to sum the contributions of each one in order to arrive at the total field. Each contribution interferes with every other contribution. When you do this at an abrupt interface, the result is reflection and refraction (and cancellation of the incident light, ala the Ewald-Oseen thm). So the main difference is that scattering generally refers to small scatterers (having a size on the order of the wavelength), and refraction requires a large number of scatterers, and a clean interface."https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247342/difference-between-scattering-and-refraction In this discussion it's often acknowledged it's due to scattering, it's just not called 'scattering'.https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-light-slow-down-in-a-medium.613481/
  10. If you have a nice example of animals living in symbiosis...
  11. Today I Learned

    Today I learned, in terms of true depth, the Kola Superdeep Borehole is the deepest borehole in the world. It is the result of a scientific drilling project of the Soviet Union in the Pechengsky District, on the Kola Peninsula. The goal was to to drill as deep as possible into the Earth's crust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
  12. science is subfield of philosophy

    I know science is not a subfield atm but it should be.
  13. the Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem

    I never said scattering=refraction. you talk with your faith, it doesn't matter what I say.
  14. the Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem

    Many people call it scattering, especially the ones that know of the extinction theorem. Have a look on google. I think It's rather interaction with atomic electrons. and electrons. Rayleigh and compton scattering are both about the interaction of photons with particles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering Their is a feyman diagram that shows this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compton_Scattering_Feynman_Diagram.png The fact that scattering implies a change in direction doesn't mean this change in direction is measurable/observable. I have done what I could but I knew only about the theorem when the thread got closed and I got another warning point.. Refraction is the change in direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium. So for example when light enters an ocean, the first watermolecules the light interact with, cause the refraction. When you take a vacuum as medium then al particles are localized non uniformities. Most of what I said is a copy-paste from the Wikipediapage about the theorem.