Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by md65536

  1. Thank you DrmDoc. I believe your post essentially proves my theory. Yes, that seems correct. However, thoughts can exist in some form without brain activity. For example, you can write out a thought. Knowledge or information can be expressed and passed from one person to another in different forms. Not all of those are "thoughts", however surely a lot of what makes up our thoughts comes from an external source. For example, we think in a language we didn't invent (typically). So some aspects of our thoughts are not created entirely within a single brain. Similarly, if I'm pondering
  2. I'm curious as to where my own beliefs and expectations are relative to my "peers". This poll is aimed mainly at fellow speculators for which I assume the following are true: - The topic you're speculating on is not related to your main area of work/study (unless working independently full-time on your theories). - You're more interested in developing a new idea on a topic than understanding all existing knowledge on the topic. Thanks for your input!
  3. I had some ideas bouncing around in my head, when I suddenly realized this could only happen if the ideas were particles. These new particles are called "ideatons" and all consciousness is made up of them. Yes, I know the theory sounds obvious, but science requires incontrovertible proof and also numbers, so I went and discovered the empirical evidence of ideatons! What I did is: I weighed my head when it was empty, and then weighed it again when I was thinking some particularly "heavy" thoughts. I had to compensate for all the other "stuff" in my head (skull, hair, small amounts of air,
  4. Uh, I guess you gave some good examples linking women to war. But it's not about good vs evil, or women vs men, or stereotypes or unfair generalization. Men tend to have more testosterone. Testosterone levels are linked to aggression. Aggression is linked to war. A hypothesis that (a lot) fewer men would result in less war, is a good one. I expect that it's true. It might be false... perhaps the link between aggression and war is superficial. Perhaps war is inevitable, and any group will tend toward war as much as any other. But I don't think that's true. I think tha
  5. I think there would be less war (fewer wars, or smaller or less destructive). I think women are less inclined toward physical aggression. I was recently pondering an idea that matriarchies might be a more natural societal power structure in the absence of physical conflict, for humans and other animals as well. I think that if there was less war, there would be more women in power. So a decrease in the influence of men might be enough... you wouldn't have to get rid of men completely! I definitely think there is a correlation between men in power and the prevalence of war, but a causal rel
  6. This explains the true motivation for the main conjecture: lack of understanding of existing theories. If you don't understand why planets would tend to be round, it may seem like there is no existing explanation and any new idea is valuable. You could spend a lot of time searching for evidence that your conjecture is true, and will more likely come across some contradiction that makes it impossible. However, I think it would be a lot easier to research other answers to the questions you (and I) are guessing the answers to: Why do planets tend to be round? Why does rotating debris tend to
  7. Yes, and I was trying to help him out with that, but I think I've at best done a disservice. I was hoping to provide some possible ways to think through the problems with this conjecture. But my answers to your questions are nothing but a way to ignore the questions, and there's no evidence to support my answers so we're left where we started, and they "handwave" past problems that could, if properly explored, show that the conjecture is false. I think a lot of pseudoscientists will latch on to other wild conjectures (or some very specific interpretation of other theories), that align well
  8. I disagree with the theory but I don't like to see an idea killed by open questions. 1. It could be that the "planet birthing" process occurs deep within the sun, involving a process that makes use of only some portion of the sun's matter. Some number of factors could influence the size and composition of each "child". 2. Births are explosive events (think Alien). Supernovae and solar winds already let stellar matter escape gravity... explosive births could too. 3. It could be possible that there are multiple means of planet formation. 4. The planet formation process might be d
  9. Wouldn't this imply that a neutron is massless? Neutron stars would be a problem then ("a spoonful weighs as much as a mountain"). If neutron stars are actually observed and not just predicted (I figure it's the former), how would they be explained? Electrons have a (relatively small) mass. Does your conjecture imply that adding electrons would decrease mass, in opposition to what is observed?
  10. Fascinating! Thanks! No, actually I'm only interested in dimension 3 but assumed it made more sense to figure it out in one dimension first. Oops. I don't get why the integral converges on finite balls centered at 0. I don't get the connection with random walks. Is the integral related to the probability of eventually returning to a finite segment in 1D, or area in 2D, or volume in 3D? Does that mean that for any arbitrarily small value of epsilon, a random walk starting at location x,y will return to within a distance of epsilon away from x,y, with infinite probability (given infinite ti
  11. I haven't done integrals for over a decade and I'm having trouble with them and my math skills are inadequate The function f(x) = 1/x^2 has a singularity at x=0. The definite integral of 1/x^2 is divergent, if it includes x=0. However, the integral from 1 to infinity, of 1/x^2, is 1. Are there examples of functions that have a singularity (where the function approaches infinity), with a convergent integral? For example of what I'm trying to get is... 1/x^2 remains non-zero for all finite values of x. Along the x axis, I imagine there's basically an infinitesimally tall re
  12. Disclaimer: I'm not a real physicist, and I haven't read all the replies, but I wanted to chip in a couple cents. First: How can you possibly see something that's frozen in time? In the first post, you admit that you can't, but then suppose that you can -- that's just asking for problems when you assume something that's known to be unreal. What exactly do you expect to see? If the clock is sending out a signal at frequency more than one million megahertz, yet it appears to be completely frozen for you, how much time do you think it will be between signals that you receive? Answer: Infi
  13. I suppose for me the biggest clue would be an answer to: Is "our" geometry the only one that works? If I am one unit of distance away from two other locations that are also one unit away from each other, that forms an equilateral triangle, with an angle of 60 degrees in "flat" geometry. Exactly 6 of these can fit around me in a circle. Why exactly 6? In curved space it could be 4, or some other number... could that curved space be transformed into a flat geometry and have everything work, only with a different value for pi, etc? Then if you could say derive pi from c without using any
  14. No, I don't think so. Do you mean that something moving along a geodesic changes direction? I don't think that's true either. The object might appear to curve from other viewpoints, because space itself is curved, but the geodesic is essentially a straight line in curved space. From the viewpoint of the object, the geodesic IS straight... it APPEARS always straight all along the geodesic. The object would not experience any acceleration. > they don't follow the same path as light because they curve more than light does. Light only orbits where escape velocity is C. I d
  15. No one would ever read or take seriously a book describing the origins of life by an eternal creative being with simplistic statements like that. The 7th D is a D of rest? No one would read something like that.
  16. Force (such as gravity) on a mass results in acceleration. Net 0 gravity means no acceleration, but it still has its velocity independent of this (v can be 0 relative to other locations). Yes, a frame's acceleration provides a force equivalent to gravity, but not its momentum. Sure, but satellites are accelerated by gravity. If they weren't, they would fly off on their own inertia, and follow the path that light would: a geodesic that curves along spacetime. Yes, 1/r^2 describes the magnitude of gravity and other things as well, such as the density of a fixed amount of energy stre
  17. Wait a sec... I've been on crack this whole time. The infinite integral of 1/x is divergent. The infinite integral of 1/x^2 is convergent, EXCEPT for the singularity at x=0. So the "fall-off" of function f( r ) = 1/r^2 is fine... it doesn't imply an infinite mass, unless we allow r=0. Suddenly the singularity is not so convenient :/
  18. I think spacetime can be flat at a point (or over a volume of points), iff at that point the gravitational pull from all mass balances out to a net force of 0. If the magnitude of gravitational force is directly related to curvature, then a gravitational gradient would involve the difference in curvature at different points, not the "steepness" of the curvature at those points. The main thing that affects tides is that the force of gravity from the moon at the point on Earth that is closest to the moon, is stronger from the force at the point on Earth farthest from the moon. This means a diff
  19. I'm sure that gravity does cancel itself out as you suggest. At a Lagrange point between the the Earth and moon, the overlapping spacetime curvature due to the Earth (curving in one way) and the moon (curving in the other way) combine to result in flat spacetime. I don't think there's any distinction between "pure" and "net" gravitation: It's all net, whether you're describing a system with one atom, or a trillion stars. Yes, it's the opposite of a derivative. In this case, if you take the total mass energy of say a particle, then the derivative of that mass would represent the densit
  20. Tides are caused by gravitational gradient, not magnitude (the sun's gravitational pull is stronger but the moon's gradient is steeper due to it being closer and thus the moon's effect on tides is greater). Gravitational fields intersect or overlap. The gravitational pull of the sun and moon and Earth summed together would be the same as summing the gravitational pull of all of the particles that make up the 3 bodies. This is similar to the above idea that any mass can be considered a particle, from the right viewpoint. From some locations, Earth's gravitational pull is identical to treati
  21. Well, there's all sorts of abstract mathematics that can be used to describe real and unreal things. Singularities are simple things in math but they don't make sense given an assumption of a fundamental continuous geometry of the universe. However, if you explore some ideas that hint that geometry is not fundamental, then you can ignore geometry for awhile and imagine other things. For example, topology can be used without requiring geometry. It is still math. If we assume that geometry is fundamental and any mathematical description of the universe must fit within that geometry, then sin
  22. Way over my head but I'll have to research those topics if I ever try to develop the theory, thanks. A smooth manifold would have no singularities? So it all works without them, and may not (or may) work with them? This might mean that there are no abrupt edges to matter. The matter at a table's edge doesn't end there but carries on to exist (in a superficial form) through all of space. The hard edge that we experience might be similar in some way to an event horizon, dividing the matter into a volume where light and other matter interact with it, and a volume where they don't.
  23. I think I figured out the answer: The symmetry of this scenario is only observed by Earth (or anyone who remains equidistant to both twins). The symmetry is observed as the twins always remaining the same age and acting in synchronization. Other observers (such as the traveling twins) would not observe the scenario occurring with synchronization, due to "lack of simultaneity", so the twins can get out of sync (different age) with each other, before eventually returning to synchronization. For an observer to synchronize the twins' age, they'd have to become equidistant to each twin, which f
  24. I remember hearing about maybe a Native American or South American tribe that believed that reality is a dream, and that our dreams are an actual reality... or something. I recently watched a Werner Herzog movie called Where the Green Ants Dream, involving indigenous Australians who believe that dreams influence reality or mix with it. To have children, they first have to dream of them. The dreams of certain animals affect nature and human existence, etc. Personally I believe that most of what we consider to be reality is emergent, but I don't think it has anything to do with dreams
  25. Proving something about something unknown by assuming that it is only something that is known, is not really useful. This leads to conclusions like "heavier-than-air aircraft are impossible" and "rockets couldn't work in a vacuum". I could assume that all transmission of speech is carried by sound waves and go on to prove that telephones are impossible. You'd have to devise a test that would prove your abilities and rule out deception. Or, submit to the tests Randi would have already devised (which might be restrictively specific to some feat that he considers to be "telepathy"). If
  • 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.