QuantumT

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

So the smiley was to say "yup that's one way to do it."

Thanks for the clarification. Very much appreciated! 

Regarding free energy. I have a theory that can drag a small electric charge from gravity. But those small charges can be repeated endlessly, creating large charges.

I don't have the math to prove it's possible, or the means to test it, so the idea will probably die with me.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

I mean no disrespect, but I can't tell if you're being condescending, or if you missed the info at first glance?

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The computer and most of the technical advances, and inventions in the 20th/21st century, would not be possible without the discovery of electricity.

True dat, but the same could be said about many (or maybe all) other inventions. I could choose one thing, and I chose the puter.

The computer. Because it's potential is practically unlimited.

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

That only works if you specify more information at the beginning.

You mean like this?

On 29/12/2018 at 1:09 AM, QuantumT said:

You have two switches: A and B. They can be on or off. They both start off.

The only rule is you can't switch the same switch twice.

You start by switching A on.

Solution to those who don't want to bother solving it:

You have two switches: A and B. They can be on or off. They both start off.

The only rule is you can't switch the same switch twice.

You start by switching A on.

After 20 minutes your mom calls, and after the call you don't remember what you did last.

How will you know which switch to switch next?

I love science truly, madly and deeply. But this is not the place for me.

The premises here is not consistent with my nature.

I am sure you are all good people. Sorry for wasting your time.

If you want to discuss anything, PM me. I will not participate in this open forum anymore.

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I think it does. Time travel can imply you are travelling faster or slower in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

If you refuse to relate to the concept of time travel, this discussion is moot.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Math is the exact opposite of handwaving.

Not if you use it to defend a preferred ontology.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not science. It is impossible, by definition, for there to be any evidence for it or against it.

For you maybe. But for me impossible is mediaval.

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

No. I actually learned it  on another forum and it makes a lot of sense. Several people from this forum were also on the other forum.

We constantly travel trough time...you can check that on your watch.

Yes, but it has very little to do with the concept of time travel.

On 17/12/2018 at 7:20 AM, Eise said:

Do you think that is according the 'Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation' of quantum physics? Why?

Well, Bohr and Heisenberg had nothing to compare it with. That's probably why they used descriptions like:

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts”
~ Werner Heisenberg

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”
~ Niels Bohr

Modern physicists disregard this, and use math as hand waving, but nothing has changed since then. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment from 2007 has confirmed it.

I'm not saying that we live inside a computer, that would be unscientific. I just don't understand the opposition. It's a valid model of reality. And it makes a lot of sense.

On 17/12/2018 at 7:17 AM, Eise said:

Now you made your own thread about digital physics, can you come back to the topic here? I asked you a lot of questions, and you just ignored them and changed the subject. I might have another question, but I'll ask that in your 'digital science' thread.

Again, thanks for your replies.

I have searched for the correlation between the two for a long time, but till now only had my own thoughts about it. It seems, to some extent that you share it.

Are there any peer reviewed publications about this?

Please do ask your question, but bare in mind that I have limited time, and that English is not my native language = Will take a while.

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that's not really it. Entropy can be decreased locally, as long as it increases somewhere else. This argument only demonstrates that it would not happen spontaneously.

Not talking about decreased entropy, but reversed. Rewind and erase.

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

We constantly travel in the future else we would not 'evolve'.

That's like saying the Earth is a spaceship, because it supports life and moves through space 

On 17/12/2018 at 11:38 AM, swansont said:

That was an opportunity to explain your claim. Isn't that the whole point of posting here? To explain your conjecture?

Thank you all for your feedback. I will address it all sooner or later. Probably later.

The reason I don't reply so fast/frequently is mainly because I don't have much spare time, but also because English is not my native language. I'm Scandinavian. It takes more effort for me to give a detailed explanation, than it would take someone who speaks and thinks English every day (since birth). And I am a "slow" person. I prefer to take my time and ponder, rather than bursting out with whatever comes to mind first.

That is also the reason I find some of the replies here in this thread shallow. They represent views that I have moved past long ago, after long deep considerations.

So, please be patient with me.

Thanks!

The reason that backwards travel is considered impossible, is because it would require reversed entropy. So it would demand braking all matter in its current flow, and making it go backwards in the same path. Not alone would that require an unimaginable amount of energy, but also be practically impossible to actually make its reversed flow follow that path.

Forward is more simple. You just need to get close enough to the event horizon of a black hole, where time is running much slower, but not beyond, where your atoms would be torn apart.

White holes are only theoretical. There is no evidence they exist.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We do? What, exactly, is pure energy?

Information might be a better word.

Quote

The Higgs makes things solid?

Yes.

Digital Science is based on the concept that reality is virtual. Made by a computer.
DS does not attempt to explain what kind of computer it is, who built it, or where it's located, it simply states that reality is virtual.

Nobody in their right mind would accept that, without some kind of proof. The closest we can get to that is circumstantial evidence. And there's plenty of that. If you look.

To me personally, quantum mechanics is a look behind the curtain. But there is much much more. Let's discuss it! 

I'll start.

Don't you find it peculiar that we live in a quantum fluctuated universe of pure energy, where only the Higgs Boson makes things solid? It's almost like a hologram we're made to believe is solid, and the only little thing that tells us this is the Higgs. Like a tiny code.

I think digital science deserves a thread of it's own - in the Speculation section obviously.

I am new here, so I hope it's not a thing that's been done to annoyance in the past.

3 minutes ago, Carrock said:

I find that concept very like 'intelligent design,' with the same problems.

For me it answers everything, but without a divine deity or faith of any kind.

All the riddles and mysteries solved with one simple answer: 42 

46 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Couldn't resist cherrypicking from your reference.

By any reasonable definition, the universe includes that universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. Hard to imagine that even in principle.

I think it's meant to be understood as a program running on a computer beyond our universe. As in: It's running our universe. Our universe is in it.

What do you guys think about digital physics?

I'm hanging on.

* It is called "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Sorry.