md65536

You don't seem to understand what a-priori epistemology is either. It is the other branch of epistemology, not empirically derived from sense data and perception... not subject to an origin in "experimentally verified" empirical science, in this case.

 

In most simple language, a-priori knowledge is what we know already before we start devising experiments to refine that knowledge. We know already that the Earth we live on does not morph out of shape responding to how space travelers might see it. But that was an old issue, already resolved.

Oh. Well maybe you're right, after all of the arguing.

That also provides an answer for philosophy of science, which is concerned with the assumptions and foundations of science. It lets us choose our assumptions simply to be "what we already know". That also seems like it must be right.

I still disagree with most of your line of reasoning, but it's hard to argue in favor of an admittedly untested theory like relativity -- which, even if it makes sense to me, does in fact go against what I knew before I even heard of it! I was so sure of the math that I never even thought of it like that.

But can the math still be right while the theory is wrong? Or is the math flawed?

I think I might have to agree, power does not corrupt and I think power does attract the corrupt. I honestly do not think that power or money would corrupt me.... at least not any more than i already am and there lies the rub. How corrupt are you or me? What behaviors would you draw that line at if you knew you couldn't be held accountable, do you know, can any of us really know what parts of our behaviors are restricted by our own inner moral compass and what behaviors are restrained due to lack of money/power to act out those behaviors. If I woke up in the morning with the power of god I can think of a short list of people who might just vanish... maybe... I do have an inner moral compass and if i stopped to think of the consequences of my actions and their effect on others I would probably not go to that list. But to be honest do to a lack of any real temptation I can't say if power would corrupt me any further than i am already corrupted.

Perhaps it's possible to answer the question by listing what conditions would make one corrupt, or that would keep one not corrupt. For example, it you weren't attracted by power, but you got power, would you abuse that power to keep it? Perhaps "willingness to give up power" is also a characteristic of someone who wouldn't be corrupted.

Suppose you were granted ultimate power so that people could be made to vanish at your will. You'd be forced to decide if you use that power or not. If you did, you'd be forced to choose who to make vanish, and there would be a lot of lines you'd need to draw to decide where to limit yourself.

Now, if you put that thought aside for a minute, and imagine that you also had the power to keep your power or to let it go. Then imagine that someone else wanted to take the power from you. Now further imagine that you could decide to stop them, or to allow them to have ultimate powers while you do not. How far would you go to keep your power, OR how far would you go from preventing someone else from having it?

This basically would be a test of your values such as "are you willing to let other people do what they want or would you rather restrict people to doing what you accept", to an extreme degree. But there's another example that's a bit more realistic. Suppose you believe that people should be free to elect whomever they want to, and that you end up being elected and gaining some power, and then a re-election comes and it looks like people want someone else in power, but you strongly disagree with whom they want and you can use the powers that you still have to influence people, to try to stay in power. Where do you draw the line between sticking to your values by letting whomever people want to be elected get elected, vs using powers to do what you think is best for people? When does it become an abuse of that power?

It seems to me that you would have to always choose to stick to your principles, over using your power to achieve what you want, in order to not be corrupted by power. If your principles include that it is always right to use power to do what you think is best, then like you say: gaining power might not corrupt you over whatever level of corruption you had before gaining power. But then, people who feel that way may be attracted to power in the first place, so it doesn't test the idea that power doesn't tend to corrupt those who aren't attracted to power.

I think power would most test people whose principles go against the abuse of power, but also go in favor of trying to do what is best for people.

I think that only if every moral decision were easy, it would be easy (for many at least) to not be corrupted by power.

I meant costly as in the energy expended and material-wise, I think that is universal.

Sorry; that does make sense. In that case my reply was unnecessarily silly but I still think the point is still reasonable: A ship of that size doesn't make sense based on current human scales, technology, and scientific understanding. Your argument could also be used to argue that the pyramids would never be built.

I do agree with you that it's not a ship, and that such a ship would be unlikely for many reasons, even less likely compared to say a much smaller ship... but that this argument makes a lot of assumptions.

Are you saying that everyone is ultimately corruptable? Something to the effect of absolute power corrupts absolutely? Although it's kind of glass half emptyish, you may be correct. Everyone will always have their own personal agenda no matter how honest they are.

Yes, I think in general people are corruptible; there are always exceptions.

I guess I read a bit more into your post than what you actually said. I assumed you were saying "There is a correlation between power and corruption, but not a causal relation. That power attracts the (easily) corruptible explains the correlation." To which I'd say, that doesn't prove that there's not also a causal relation.

If you gave an example of something like what swansont suggests investigating -- a situation where power was achieved but not due to its attraction -- we might try to show that power would or wouldn't corrupt in that example, which might be an argument against or for your claim. An example of someone with power but not attracted to power, who doesn't get corrupted, would be evidence that power doesn't necessarily corrupt the easily corruptible.

I have a feeling that with enough power, the inconsistencies in what we each believe is right and wrong could cause anyone to make corrupt decisions, but I don't know if that's the case for all examples.

And the temperature fluctuations are drastic, we obviously have insulation materials that can withstand greater temperatures than 800 f, but for such a large structure? and for long periods of time? I'm not sure this spaceship would last long... it would be costly, inefficient, laborious...

I agree. The Corinians would obviously have early 21st century Earth technology as well as human-like size and temperature requirements. Why wouldn't they also have a similar economy to ours? If you think the Dow can suffer without any effect on alien stock markets, you're nuts! With the obvious fall in the Quatloo, who in the universe could even afford a spaceship of that size?!

Anyway, kidding aside, the explanation that it's an image processing effect is doubtless.

I think that with automation and replication, building large scale structures is conceivable. Who knows what future technology might be like say 10000 or a billion years in the future, and whether bigger is better or not. I think a Dyson sphere would be possible, and a lot bigger.

I dont believe power corrupts. I believe power attracts the corruptable.

The second statement doesn't support the first, unless you're presuming the existence of those who are not corruptible.

Do you have an example of someone who is not corruptible even when wielding great power?

I think in general power corrupts.

They are the carrier of the electromagnetic force.

"Electromagnetism attracts electrons to an atomic nucleus to form atoms," [http://en.wikipedia....lectromagnetism]

This happens without photons being exchanged between electron and nucleus, right? Is it safe to say that for not all effects of electromagnetism is there a need (or in any sense, "existence") of a photon to have the effect? Eg. electrons are bound to atoms due to the electromagnetic force; considering only a single atom, no photon can definitively be said to actually exist until there is a transfer of energy via electromagnetic radiation?

In terms of gravitity and the hypothetical graviton, it could be that gravitation effects occur without gravitons, but that gravitons might "exist" anywhere that gravitational force information needs to be "carried", which would essentially be when there is a change.

The http://en.wikipedia....i/Force_carrier link says "it is thought that there may be particles called gravitons which are the excitations of gravitational waves" (tentative).

Also, it suggests that an answer to my question above is that any electromagnetic interaction can be thought of as carried out by "virtual particles", so whether or not particles actually exist in those cases is I guess somewhat up to interpretation?

Couldn't the existence of non-virtual (long-lived) particles such as photons be the same as the existence of virtual particles? Might they have no physical existence beside the measurable effect that has occurred, ie. that a force has been carried? Or is that in fact what defines their existence -- that electromagnetic force carrying (light) has been measured, while gravitational force carrying has not been observed? So detection of gravity waves would constitute that and would show that gravitons exist?

Sorry I realize with all these questions that I'm in over my head.

Doh! Sorry, you're right. I wrote what I wrote, went out and realized while I was out that I had worked out the probability of at least N matches rather than exactly N matches.

 

I expanded your new formula and it comes out the same as the previous one, but I find the new reasoning behind it easier to understand. I will work on my brute force program tomorrow so I can try to calculate these probabilities in an independent way and compare with the formula answers.

No worries. Figuring out the problems is what's interesting.

I actually expected the formula to come out different!, that it would be simpler with some obscure simplification.

Working with combinations instead of factorials should be a lot easier (programmatically or spreadsheet-ically) because you can have large values yet avoid calculating the full factorials. Edit: Actually I guess the same type of shortcuts could be made with either.

Sorry but I think I have disproved the formula. I took a small set T = {a,b,c,d,e} and let X=Y=2 and N=1. The matrix below shows all possible combinations of sets X and Y, with a 1 indicating that they have an element in common and 0 indicating that they do not. There are exactly sevens 1's in each row and column, totalling 70. Since there are 100 cells, the probability is 0.7 whereas the formula gives 0.6

If you change one entry in each row to a 2, indicating where both members match, the number of 1s (where exactly 1 member matches) is 60.

Hmmm... the chart gets me thinking of a different strategy to solve the problem.

Say you already have the set X and T, and you want to construct Y so that exactly N members match. How many ways can you do this?

You would choose N members from X, and then fill out the rest of Y with remaining members from T that aren't in X. The number of ways to do this is "From X choose N" times "From |(T \ X)| choose Y-N".

Then "From T choose Y" is the total number of ways that Y can be chosen.

Then the probability of randomly getting one of the sets where exactly N match (being lazy with the notation) would be...

(x C n)(t-x C y-n) / (t C y)

which expands to... uh I don't want to bother. It might be interesting to expand and compare it to the previous formula.

But LibreOffice has a COMBIN function, so it's easier to keep it as combinations for spreadsheet math!...

Using X=Y=2 and N=1 and T=5, it comes to 2 * 3 / 10 = 0.6

Why would the math be any different if you changed the name? Let's call it Fred. Fred is a four-dimensional manifold that is curved in the presence of mass. Light follows geodesic paths on Fred.

I have a feeling that this is the one point that will be taken from all your replies in this post, and that 6 months from now we'll be hearing about how "Science thinks that what spacetime really 'is' is pink fairies living on a rabbit pelt named Fred."

"Curved space" is NOT a GIVEN.

You're right.

It is only consistent with all known measurements and the model of GR. If there were measurements that disagreed, that would be evidence against either GR and/or universal gravitation.

So, philosophically, you can contemplate space that is not curved by the presence of mass, but that doesn't correspond to reality.

Stick to the topic or go away.

I'm sorry. I was replying to someone's question in the thread, which I thought was on topic. Or is it only the questions that are on topic, and answers are off? I apologize for being slow at learning the rules of threads that belong to you.

Likewise, quantum physics can call the gravity agent (whatever) "gravitons," and GR can call "it" curved spacetime, and it doesn't matter in either case what those words mean or how it works as long as the math looks good on paper and predicts the observable effects of gravity.

Yes, and a table is made of atoms. Does that bother you? But what is an atom? And what is a quark?

Science has a broad range of ontological answers to the question "what is a table?" but they begin and end with what can be determined experimentally.

Can you give me an example of any definitive ontological answer to a question of what something is, where one can't simply take the answer and say "But what IS that?", as you have been doing?

N p

1 0.099206

2 0.396825

3 0.396825

4 0.099206

5 0.003968

The symmetry in probabilities also makes sense, because if you chose Y from T and are left with (T \ Y) with 5 members, it is equivalent to choosing (T \ Y) first: taking 5 members away from T and leave the remaining ones as a set called Y.

If exactly 2 members of X match with Y, then the rest (exactly 3) must match with (T \ Y).

If Y and (T \ Y) are symmetrical or whatever, the probability of matching 2 in one and 3 in the other must equal the probability of matching 3 in one and 2 in the other.

Looks promising!

Let's get very specific. Spacetime may not be a "thing." Maybe it's metaphysical concept. How does "it" interact with the masses that GR claims it does to make it curve, and then how does "it" in turn guide objects in curved paths?

Oh! Well that's easy!

Let's assume that spacetime is not a "thing", as you will see in the following example that whether or not it "is" a thing is not relevant to the answer to the question (which is itself an answer to this thread's question).

If you were to measure lengths in a given curved space, using any consistent method of measuring lengths, you would find that lengths which might be the same in flat space, are measured as different lengths in curved space.

If a hypothetical mass moving through this space were also to measure these lengths, it too would find that lengths are not universal, and it would measure lengths that are consistent with what you measure. So you measure that lengths are different, and so does the mass. Lines that are straight from one viewpoint can be curved from another.

Now, this hypothetical mass can also "measure lengths" using any consistent method. So it doesn't have to pull out a ruler and use its hands... the simple act of moving through a space can act as a measure of it. And THIS is how the mass "interacts" with the non-thing space that we're imagining: It only has to behave consistently in the space; it behaves over a length as if it has measured that length. Whether or not it actually "does something" to measure it is not important to answer the question. Just like if you walk across a room, the room will be the same length whether you have your eyes open or not (since the universe is consistent), something behaves in space the same whether it is measuring lengths with a ruler or not.

So in the end we have that the mass only have to behave consistently in this space as if it is measuring it to be curved, and it will behave as if the space is curved. It doesn't matter what constitutes the measure. It doesn't matter if it's measuring "no thing", or "something". If it behaves as if curved space is nothing, then curved space might be nothing, but if it also behaves as if curved space is "something", then it might also be something. BUT HERE'S THE POINT of the science vs. purely philosophical questioning: If there's no way to answer (or differentiate, or test) whether one is right and the other is wrong or vice versa, then the question is irrelevant, can't (at least yet) be answered, doesn't make a difference to the behavior of things in that space, does not have to be answered for science to progress, cannot be answered definitively, and is a time-wasting digression from science. That said, of course philosophy in general is relevant to science and even the unanswerable questions can inspire useful scientific questions and ideas.

I'm not a card-carrying scientist and I can only hope that this is correct enough. I'm sure it can be explained better. This is only what I've picked up from the many other answers to your questions, which you could have also done yourself.

So the probability peaks at 24 and 25 before starting to fall. Why does it rise between 10 and 24? It doesn't make sense.

My guess is that for small values of T, you're much more likely to match 2 or 3 or more, than just 1.

For T=5, the probability is 1 for N=5.

For T=9, the sum of the probabilities for N=[1,5] will be 1.

After that, the sum of probabilities for N >= 1 will start falling to 0 as T approaches infinity, and the value of N that has the highest probability of being the number of exact matches will go from 5 down to 1 and eventually to 0 as T goes from 5 to infinity (that is, with a large enough T the most likely number of matches will be 0).

It obviously wouldn't be visible through calculation - only through measurement (why would you change the maths without observng a reason to?)

Oh. Well, in that case what you'd be measuring wouldn't be euclidean space. As mentioned previously in this thread, if you draw a big enough circle in curved space, it won't have the same ratio of circumference to radius of 2pi.

So then the question might be, "Has local space always been euclidean?" Again I don't think it's possible that it can vary by small amounts, and yet we just happen to be in a situation where it is, by chance.

http://news.discovery.com/space/once-upon-a-time-the-universe-was-really-weird-110321.html

This article suggests that the 3 spatial dimensions of euclidean geometry were not always "there" in the early universe.

Pure speculation based on very weak understanding of all this: Perhaps curved space can somehow have fractional dimension to it, but it can always be observed consistently with an integer number of dimensions, so that "local space" is always flat no matter the number of dimensions. Perhaps if space can curve so much that it would fold over on itself, we would instead experience 4 spatial dimensions??? So, it may have been the case that local space was non-euclidean in the early universe (since euclidean space is defined as having 3 spatial dimensions), and may not be in the distant future? I don't know if pi or an analog would be defined for such spaces, and if so what its value would be. But I would still assume that if it changed, it would not do so gradually.

As insane alien said, 3.14159... is pi in euclidean space.

Our space is not globally euclidean. If you were to draw a big enough circle in a gravitational field, you'd notice the ratio between its circumference and diameter was a tiiiny bit different.

I'm still confused, with questions like "Is flatness subjective?; what defines euclidean space and could any of those properties be modified?"

But I think that a big part of the confusion is that since pi is irrational it can appear to be just an arbitrary sequence of apparently random digits.

It can be calculated by fairly simple infinite series that corresponds to some geometric interpretation...

Such as:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi]

This is a series of very simple rational numbers.

From this, I would think that pi would not change by small amounts over time.

If you imagined that pi changed somewhere in say the billionth decimal place, over the past few million years, then what formula could be used to calculate that different value?

What small change in geometry could yield a different pi, but still allow it to be calculated with a simple series?

I think it is hardly certain that the Universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Every few years, that estimate gets longer and longer. I think it is pretty clear that 14 billion and 3.14.... is just coincidence. Especially when you think that of all the bases we could have used, 3.14 is only the value in base 10.

Coincidence?! Or... ?

...not!

Consider this: Every two or three years the estimate of the age of the universe increases by two or three years. AND, every few years they find that there are even a few more digits to pie than they previously thought! Mostly due to faster computers with bigger hard drives, is my guess. Just a couple years ago, they thought that pie had only about a million digits, but then they found a whole bunch more.

Maybe, just like the universe, pie ages, and it grows. What is this mysterious stuff that grows on pie as it gets really old?

What I maen is: in the early universe could Pi have been closer to my ideal 3?

A hexagon inscribed in a circle (so that the hexagon's side length = the circle's radius) will have a perimeter of 6.

I've tried to reason that if you can get the hexagon's perimeter to equal the circle's, then tau (=2pi) would be 6, so pi would be 3. What does that mean though, I dunno! Could you curve space so that a hexagon and circle are the same? Could you pinch one side of an equilateral triangle so that the hexagon's perimeter becomes smaller, and the circle's becomes 6r?

pi is determined by the metric of space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp_space

There's a link on that page to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroid

Surprising to me, "An astroid created ... inside a circle of radius a will have ... a perimeter of 6a."

Does this mean that if pi were 3, then a unit circle would be an astroid?

So in Tres Juicy's ideal universe, an astroid (not a hexagon) and a circle would be identical?

Edit: Oh wait, there must be some value of p > 1 (unlike an astroid where p=2/3) but p < 2 where the perimeter of the unit circle is 6r. Maybe p=3/2??? That would be an "ideal universe" that is closer to our own than the space where p=2/3.

Edit2: I was curious and tried to look it up... the best I found was http://www.procato.com/superellipse/

If you use a value for n of 1.582 (not 1.5 = 3/2 as I'd guessed), and a=b=2 you will get a plot of a superellipse with a perimeter of approximately 6.00. This would be a unit circle if pi were 3. Unfortunately I can't find anything that is more precise. With a=b=1, a value of 1.57 is good enough, so I thought at first that maybe an L^p space with p=pi/2 would give a unit circle of perimeter 6. Does anyone know if there's any significance to this value (about 1.582)?

As another old-timer let me just say this: it's time you grew up. Your theory is invalidated by evidence. Pretending it is otherwise just means you go to your grave ignorant and foolish. The only positive thing that might be said is that your ideas will have given the less compassionate a good laugh. This may sound cruel, but it would be much more cruel to encourage you in your self deception.

Now now, there's no reason to accept reality to the point that it is depressing. A little bit of delusion is probably essential for all of us to bother going on living! What is hope in spite of an acceptance of statistical chance but a belief that it even matters if something goes one way or another. We will ALL go to the grave ignorant and foolish, moreso if we think we understand the universe so well that we can be certain that others are wrong.

I disagree that anyone should ever have to grow up just because someone else thinks it's time. What's best is balance, as determined by whatever works best for each of us.

knowerastronomy: If your understanding of the universe gives you happiness then accept it. I wouldn't recommend pushing it to the point that it diminishes that (arguing on the internet etc).

Perhaps one day your ideas will inspire others to create a theory out of it, and they will become famous (and likely, you won't, but such people who have inspired others have made it into history books and are still studied). The thing is that ideas are usually so vague and ambiguous that you can't always say whether they're right or wrong. It takes mathematical precision to do that, so the question is whether an idea is good or bad -- whether it can lead one to figure out some math that can be shown to be right. However, despite the ideas, any claims made that contradict the evidence are wrong. I'm certain.

The disappearance of a specie does affect the survival of their predators, and changes populations of other related and predated.

 

What ecological bad could come if all mosquitoes cease to exist ? Less frogs and salamanders perhaps ? Would that trigger a major disruption in ecology ?

http://www.gizmag.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-aegypti-mosquito/20668/

Quote: "a scientific consensus forming that the complete eradication of mosquitoes would have limited, if any, adverse environmental effects"

But it also says: "The humble mosquito, and the deadly diseases it carries, is estimated to have been responsible for as many as 46 billion deaths over the history of our species. That staggering number is even more frightening in context - it means that mosquitoes are alleged to have killed more than half the humans that ever lived." To me that says that mosquitoes have a pretty big direct influence on humans!, and wiping them out will have major consequences, including the intended consequences of saving lives but also unintended consequences that we'd better be prepared to deal with, which I doubt we will be!

You only criticize and posture to bolster your arguments. . . none of which are yours. . .

Okay. So now this thread has fallen into the disappointingly typical mode of many threads involving a "new theory that explains everything". You haven't convinced anyone yet and you're not going to convince anyone this way.

What is the next step forward for you and the theory?

- Are you done the work on it, and want to market it to others?

- Are you willing to do whatever additional work is needed to move it forward, even if it involves math and even if it is more difficult than you can handle?

- Are you willing to give up?

- Other?

If you choose the first option, you should accept that someone's going to have to do the math and figure out a testable hypothesis etc. before this will convince anyone, so you will need to figure out how to inspire someone that the idea is good enough for them to work on it. To be realistic, you must realize that the real work on this hasn't even been started yet. Others have spent entire lives trying to figure it all out and no one has done it yet, so chances for success are not great if your goal is too high. Perhaps this thread may help with an answer to "what now?"

hello to all. i have a curious eye problem which im hoping someone might help or advise me with. on certain backgrounds ie; a bright sunny day,foggy day,or even while im looking at my computer screen typing this,i can see what i can best describe as parasites swimming in my vision. they,re not floaters because they actually move or swim about and theres a glint off them as they move. i cant see them all the time and they dont effect my day to day routines. when i go to sleep at night though they appear when i shut my eyes for a few moments and thats it basically. if anyone has an idea to what they are or if it might lead to something more serious,i would be very grateful for all your help. thank you again and merry xmas to all..

It sounds similar to "seeing stars". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene lists some possible causes. Any time I've seen stars they were noticeably bright, and I think probably white. I'm not sure if that's what you're describing.

Ah! I think I was wrong to worry about the non-match case, since you are calculating P2 on the premise that we have a match (that is what P1 is for).

Yeah! I think that basically when you're multiplying probabilities, including with all the factorial factors, you're essentially saying "What is the probability that this first thing happens, and assuming that it does, what is the probability that this second thing also happens, and assuming that it does, what is the probability that this third thing also happens, etc..."

If you ever get a probability factor of 0 for any of the individual factors, then the whole thing comes out to 0. BUT ALSO, if the probability that "the second thing" is 0, then you can't assume that it happens when looking at the probability of the third thing. That is why the formula can fail in impossible cases, because it assumes impossible things. So you would state the domain of the function, and either state that you assume the problem is within the domain (ie assume that T is big enough) or you would handle the other cases separately.

I think the reasoning is good; I hope the math works out! I haven't tried putting it all together myself, but I usually end up making mistakes that need correcting.

Please keep an open mind and use your logic. . .

I keep making the mistake of mixing up the phrases "logic" and "intuitive reasoning or common sense" and I think you are too.

Logic "is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic]

Intuitive reasoning is fine but you're not going to overthrow Einstein without the "formal" or "systematic" or "valid" or "correct reasoning" parts.

I started watching the videos and they look well-made.

Early in the first of the ten videos is the statement, "Nothing [in the new theory] is said about the speed of light being relative to anything. The speed of light is just that, the speed of light. Hence, the hypothesis that nothing can travel faster is illogical." That's not logic!

If you really feel you have the answers to how the universe works, you're going to have to tackle the math. Doing the math changes an idea, the way that using a paintbrush changes a painting you've only imagined.

Should't it taste like burning metal and bleach mixed together?

I remember being told that tastebuds don't work when dry. Does this mean that any time we taste salt, it is in a soluble form? So that if dry salt and dissolved salt tasted different, it is always the dissolved form that we taste (and dry salt, with dried tastebuds, would have a different taste, possibly harsh or metalic? I suppose I could experiment...).

I tried dry salt on a dry tongue and didn't taste anything, so I can't answer my own question. I don't know if the way that tastebuds react to salt makes use of some unique properties when dissolved, or if they would react the same whether the chemicals are in crystal form or dissolved.