Lord Antares

1 hour ago, AnubisSight said:

is kept secret

1 hour ago, AnubisSight said:

Any info would be nice.

Marvelous.

Simply put, sound is just a displacement of particles. When you clap, you send a shockwave of motion through the air and the particles move one another in all directions, and this movement is heard as sound in your ears. The more particles there are, the greater the motion. For example, the speed of sound is more than 4 times as fast in water than it is in air, simply because water is much denser (contains more particles per unit of distance^3) than air.

That being said, space is very rare. There are not enough particles to make a sound. So I guess it depends on whether you ask if it makes a sound to our ears if there is such motion which makes a sound. It would be no to the former, but particle propagation works just as it does in other mediums. It's just that there's too little particles and they are too far apart to make a sound for us.

I completely agree about the pacing in the last episode.They condense a journey into 1 epizode which would otherwise last one or two seasons. I think this is largely an issue of how really slow the pacing of the past seasons was and so little actually happened that this being the second-to-last season needed to speed things up.

Also, something which makes absolutely no sense to me in the last episode:

18 minutes ago, DrKrettin said:

/cut

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is where the idea of meaningful events comes in i.e. beyond what most people would consider outside normal stochastic variation.. His 'luck' became meaningful to mean that his actions were more apparently fraudulent with each consecutive win..

I know. There are instances where fraud and unlikliness are too obvious, but I'm talking about the exact limit of what you would consider more than a coincidence. You put the limit at 1 in X and one number below that is considered coincidence, while one number above is considered fishy and unlikely. I'm just pointing out that these limits can't be this set in stone and arbitrary, there definitely needs to be a lot of fluidity around the limits. 

Winning the lottery 10 years in a row is WAY beyond the line of fishiness, and thus there is no problem with concluding that it's fraud.

50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 There is a probability boundary at which they decide something is likely more than chance . That author was just doing the same thing but whether he was correct or not,I don't know.

There's no straight answer to that, just because it is an arbitrary evaluation. Of course, there are limits to what would be considered a coincidence. Someone winning a lottery 10 times in a row will be evaluated to be a scheme or a broken system, rather than luck, which is reasonable. But which is the exact point below which it could be considered a coincidence and above which it wouldn't? Because that point is completely arbitrary and subjective, so there isn't a technical answer to your question. But in general, of course there are instances which are so unlikely that it's improbable they are just coincidences.

Also, see the second part of the post, it's very relevant to the discussion.

57 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The thought came up when I was reminded of an article, probably 30 years ago or more, The article was about roulette tables and, apparently, every result in every casino is routinely recorded. At the time, I think, the most a number had come up was 7 times in sequence. Long story short, the author calculated and argued that beyond a certain number of times - I forget how many - such a result would become a meaningful event rather than just a random result. Given that statistics is so important in science to isolate and confirm/refute things it did seem sensible to me. I should have used the word 'meaningful' rather than 'paranormal' in my last post.

But ''meaningful'' is just an arbitrary number evaluated by humans. Of course, you would never expect to flip tails a 100 times in a row. There are occasions like that where the deviation is much higher than expected (or, in other words, where a seuqence comes up much sooner than the expected number of takes/flips where you would expect it to come up). There's nothing strange there.

The good point made by Delta is that it's different if you view an isolated, elaborate experiment or if you go out of our way to search for massive coincidences. There are countless events and sequences and it's only natural that some would seem highly unlikely. For example, there is nothing strange to me about the earth being formed exactly the way it is and yielding perfect conditions for life under the 1 to ridiculous number odds. But if you were to be an elaborate observer of the creation of another solar system, it would be practically impossible for that to happen and it would be more than meaningful if such a coincidence were to happen.

10 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

Perhaps if it was part of an experiment. I don't think it works with just any random event that we might come across because then it just requires finding an event that has a chance of one out of the total number of all events that happen around the world of happening.

Exactly. This is all that needs to be said, period. 

It says that it's a hoax on that link...

If something like that was going to happen, it would be gargantuan news a year (or possibly years) before it happened, it would be hyped into the sky.

What are you talking about?

1 minute ago, Eldad Eshel said:

stfu idiot. 

Lol. Before you get banned, I just want to say I hope you get a scientific education and realize what science is in reality. If you knew that, you would be producing these heaps of rubbish. You are embarrassing yourself, really. Learn the scientific method and learn mathematics; only then can you think about talking.

I can't believe someone has the audacity to put ''copyright'' next to this drivel. 

You do understand, do you not, that you need mathematics and evidence to present theories? Not only is that missing, but there are heaps upon heaps of pages on string theory and you somehow think this rubbish completes it. Get a scientific education please.

1 hour ago, Eldad Eshel said:

Maybe give out a list of the many nobel prizes you have won.

You first.

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's its.

He knows, he said ''it's'' was wrong.

We're not allowed to give straight answers here. You're supposed to give your line of thinking and what you think is the answer and why and people will guide you to the right answer. You're supposed to give it, though.

52 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Secondly, could you please provide a summary of the following portion of mine?

Yes. Drivel.

53 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

 

Science is such that constantly facilitates that its models are redefined.

 

This is one of the pillars of science; given new evidence, models are subject to change, redefinition, update or what ever synonym you prefer to employ.

 

And? The fact that definitions need to be redefined from time to time does not mean that your redefinition is automatically useful. That is a huge fallacy. Your definition is useless. It doesn't bring anything new. It's doesn't bring anything useful. It has no substance whatsoever.

You should have posted this under philosophy, because it is bad philosophy. Nothing to do with science. Again, I suggest you learn parts of classical physics in depth so that you might understand what scientific theory is.

7 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

A glance is not sufficient.

I'm sorry, but it is. You're attempting to redefine a word. This concerns linguistics and not science in any way. Therefore, none of your arguments can be scientifically viable. You are repeating your ''minimally capable gods'' nonsense just the same as were saying it before.

It is exactly as if I sad ''I want the word ''box'' to also mean ''glass'' and here is my scientific argument as to why...''. Anything that follows after that is senseless as it has nothing to do with science and is not logical by default. You're doing the same thing. You have some twisted logic why you think the word ''god'' should be redefined, which no one ever agrees with; yet you're hell bent on using your definition. I really want to tell you why this is completely senseless and pointless but you seem to have some mental block which prevents you from understanding this.

I glanced over it; but I didn't have to read anything as it's what you've talked about several times now. We've had this discussion of redefining the concept of god like a year ago and it was completely senseless. I'm sorry, it's just so obvious that none of this makes sense and it is irrelevant in every way possible. I don't want to call you a delusional person, but you might want to rethink what logical argumentation is.

I suggest learning science (say, classical physics) and seeing how logical, well tested and well designed those theories are. You will see how unfounded and lacking your ''theories'' are in comparison. How none of what you said is quantifiable, provable or even proven for logic. I give you this advice with good intentions.

Will you quit with your rubbish? You were made aware that these kinds of threads are unwanted, can't you take the hint? You've opened several threads and all are about the same thing. You want to redefine a word for no reason whatsoever. None of what you say makes sense. There is nothing scientific in what you are saying. It's even too vague to be philosophical.

The mods don't appreciate it when you repeatedly open threads on a subject you have been told not to touch again. As I said before, your ban is imminent, trust me. I hope you will make the choice to study science and open sensible threads in the future, on the off chance that you don't get banned.

Today I learned that drones are being used to plant trees, lots of them. Apparently, 100 000 plants are planted daily just by drones.

http://mymodernmet.com/biocarbon-engineering-drone-reforestation/

2 hours ago, Delta1212 said:

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to me to be a rather large obstacle to the idea that we just haven't figured out the underlying deterministic mechanism.

It's a fundamental "baked in" mathematical uncertainty that is not merely a result of technical limitations but of fundamental limits on what is determined prior to an interaction.

I know of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I'm not aware of anything which would point to this. I'm not familiar with the mathematics, so perhaps I'm missing some deeper knowledge to apply this to.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. Tests of Bell's inequality show that there isn't some "hidden" information that we are missing. 

Same goes for this. At this point in time, I have trouble understanding how we can tell that for certain, so knowing this in depth must be interesting, to say the least. I suppose these two would be very lengthy topics, though.

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. QM is not random. 

2. The probabilistic nature is not an assumption. 

1. By random, I mean unpredictable. QM is considered to be unpredictable.

2. I understand that, but take a step back a read the back and forth between me and Delta. You will see what I mean by ''probabilistic nature is an assumption''.

59 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

It is not being assumed as the default. It is following the evidence. If new evidence comes to light showing that the rules of QM could somehow be explained by a deeper, deterministic level, then opinion would shift to match the new evidence. You are currently stating that you don't believe the current evidence for probabilistic QM and that you think eventually some new evidence will be discovered that contradicts current evidence because you don't like where the current evidence points.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only evidence for that the fact that we couldn't find the pattern to the behaviour? If so, that point is paradoxical because anything we cannot find a way to predict is, by definition, random. Why can it simply not be that we haven't learned how QM behaves to a better degree? 

9 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

Why do you assume that determinism is the default state of things? It seems intuitive that it is, but only because we live in a world that seems fairly deterministic. That deterministic appearance is an emergent property of an underlying probabilistic nature, though, and follows fairly straightforwardly from it.

It is like looking at the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave, and when told that there are three dimensional objects casting those shadows, insisting that further investigation will almost certainly reveal that the objects are themselves composed of shadows because that's the only way they make sense.

And why do others assume that ''random'' is the default state of things? Because they can't find a pattern to QM's randomness, which is ironic, because the sole prerequisite of events being random is not knowing the pattern!

It is my belief. I've had many thought experiments about this as well. Too long or drawn out to write here. My point is, the default shouldn't be assumed either way.

17 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

You are missing the point of the analogy. Things appear deterministic on a macro scale because of the law of large numbers and the fact that our measurements are rarely all that precise in comparison to the quantum scale. They don't switch over from being random to actually being deterministic. Only approximately deterministic to a degree such that we can't easily tell the difference.

I understand what you are telling me, but that wasn't my point either. My point is that the assumption is made that QM is random because we cannot find a way to predict it. This doesn't conclusively mean that there actually is no method to its behaviour. I believe it would be in line with what we know about probability to assume that QM is deterministic because the contrary would imply unpredictable behaviour without proper cause. Obviously, this is just my opinion; it might be wrong. But I do believe it would be irresponsible to assume with a great degree of confidence that QM behaviour is truly random.

21 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

Like flipping a coin a billion times. The exact number of heads and tails that you get is going to be different each time you do a billion flips,

Obviously it is going to be different and there is nothing random about it but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking if you flip the coin a billion times in EXACTLY the same way, it will always land predictably. The only reason a coin flip is ''random'' is because we don't know the variables of forces with which the coin was flipped.