imatfaal

I never studied much philosophy, but I have thought about metaethics and religion quite a bit. Evaluating theism seems to require a predictive model of the behavior of the god, and such a model is difficult to fathom since a god is a mind and we tend to consider minds more whimsical than natural forces. This is where metaethics comes in. Ethics is concerned with what is ethical whereas metaethics seems more concerned with why one ought to be ethical....

I would argue with your definition of meta-ethics. Ethics deals with moral principles, the way we live our lives, and the determination, formalization, and promotion of a code which allows us as individuals and communities to flourish. Meta-Ethics is the study of how those codes arise and why the human polity and individual need ethical systems of thought - ie what is morality?

Most ethical systems hold within themselves the reasons for adhering to a certain set of life choices guided by an ethos in the ancient Greek usage.

This presents a problem for theism if the god has to be ethical too, for this might imply a different kind of world than ours, e.g. a world without suffering.

You are now using ethical in a different sense - a more modern and subtle sense; in the above quote you are using it to mean 'following an enlightened, caring, and wholesome system of ethics' . But that is not what ethical really means in philosophical terms. Ethical means following a system of life choices with an end in mind - it really has little to do with the morality of the decisions. I don't think anyone would argue that the Spartans lacked a compelling ethos - but they might well not be called ethical in the modern usage.

And all that is counted by the terrible and pointless(I swear, if so much as one person quotes me on this saying I'm wrong, I'm gonna freak out.) statement that:

God has his reasons for everything.

So it's hard to argue the ethical standpoint.

Any argument that has as little (or as much) soundness as Russell's Teapot can be dismissed without need to say it is wrong - it is not even wrong

Yep, black hole mergers require massive simulations to understand their behaviour.

I don't think we even have a solution for close binary star system - and it was the loss of angular momentum (via gravitational waves) in a close binary that was the first indirect evidence of a new prediction of GR

Analytic solutions of the Einstein Field Equations are pretty few and far between. We have them for the vacuum around the various sorts of black holes - which we can then use to approximate (sometimes very closely) other situations.

I do not know if - for example - if the black hole merger spotted by ligo was predicted by a solution to the equations or through massive modelling; I think it was the later.

So to answer your last question; yes solutions exist, but whilst we understand the tools with which to find the solution we do not yet have the skill to utilise them. Instead of solving the equations within a certain set of parameters we create models / simulations and run them a myriad of times to find out what should happen.

I understand a quantum entangled particle is restricted in its degrees of movement. If particle A rotates 90 degrees, particle B mirrors -90 degrees, but if particle A rotates j90 particle B does nothing . Almost like only restricted dimensional information is getting through, is any of this correct.

Not really - entanglement does not really work like that.

Entangled particles have a strange state of existence in that the two particles do not have two individual states - but instead they share an entangled state. When you measure one particle to find out what its properties are then the entanglement is broken and each particle immediately resolves into a normal state - the two normal states that the particles end up in are correlated or anti-correlated. What is spooky is that we can show that this happens faster than any communication could possibly happen between the two particles. And that we can also show that the state of the particles was not merely hidden till measurement - but it was this special undetermined entangled state.

So entanglement is not as useful as twist one particle and the other twists in the opposite direction - but it is still damn weird and it still flies in the face of classsical physics

 

Personally, I always found Stanisław Ulam's discovery of the correlation between primes and geometry very fascinating.

A truly great mathematician - in an age in which the competition was tough.

There was such a flourishing of mathematical/scientific genius in the 30s and 40s - and it is such a tragedy that the world was forced / allowed itself to use that brilliance to develop weapons. Where would we be as a species if the incredible genius of people like Ulam and the other colossal intellects of the Manhattan project has been free to choose their own goals - yet were still granted the resources, the time, and the ambition and ability to work together.

The four forces are mediated by exchange particles - gauge bosons - which kind of "go from one object to the other" and thus create the force. This is a gross and dangerous simplification. Most of the time (unless an interaction occurs) these are virtual particles (whilst the force is anything but). The interaction between the two objects which is mediated by the exchange particles is limited to the speed of light - thus the exchange particles are limited to c for the massless ones (graviton, photon, gluon) and less than c for the massive one's (W, Z).

QFT can be visualized and calculated by Feynman diagrams - many of the gauge bosons in the calculations and predictions of QFT are virtual particles and I do not believe that they are constrained. These virtual particles must remain internal to the calculation, ie do not externally interact and are loops in diagrams; thus they do not really become a problem in SR in terms of FTL causality.

Note - due to Colour Confinement - you do not get free gluons. So it is all a bit of a moot point

"A chromatograph picture of natural Vitamin C. Notice how much more dynamic is the pattern formed by the moving fluid"



"A chromatograph picture of synthetic Vitamin C. The pure compound doesn't have the formative pattern of a natural food."

http://oregonbd.org/class-5/

Damn - what a load of codswallop!

If I had to guess I would say that they ar very badly done chromatography - you know the sort you did in first year at school with a round filter paper and a drop of ink in the centre. The scalloping on the left hand samples look as if the filter paper was crumpled/pleated as if in a cone shape

I think - and this is very much guesswork - that quantum spin precession in a magnetic field follows exactly the same shape and direction path as would be expected by a classical spin precession in a magnetic field; thus nomenclature is the same. If you think about it, the direction of angular momentum vector is somewhat arbitrary - ie why we have a rule; it would strike me as strange that intrinsic angular momentum was classified differently. But, and it is a very big But, my answer is assumption rather than knowledge.

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

10^-35 metres cubed is about 7 orders of magnitude larger than an atomic nucleus

Planck length is not the smallest conceivable measurement . I can conceive of something with a diameter of a planck length - its radius is half a planck length.

The planck length is around where quantum effects and gravity must be both taken into account simultaneously - we cannot do that yet

Yep:),But...,I found it seemed to work after 5, but 2 & 5 would still give me all prime x primes of 2 & 5: 2 x31 5x5 etc.

 

@strange @Imatfaal, Thanks for info, did not fully realize(understand) about unique-prime-factorization theorem, &"composite numbers" where the plus 30 fails 35,49,77 etc,

I just found it interesting,that these composite numbers are the product of just "2 primes" that went to a sort of order, 5x7 7x7, 11x7, 13x7, etc, so has i went higher up the primes, I would use 7 & every other prime 7x103, 7x113, 7x131etc.

Then 11 and every other prime,

Then 13 and ever other prime, etc.

 

But then again it does help if you know your "prime x's tables". cheers anyway, back to drawing board.

I believe primes have fascinated mathematicians since the time whereof the memory of man knoweth not - they are slippery customers and every time we (even great mathematical colossi) think they have a good handle on them they squirm free. We know a huge amount about them and about factorization - but the holes in our knowledge are annoying and not insignificant.

The Mathematical communities main avenue of approach is via the Riemman Zeta function - but that is really gnarly maths

"We're all colored, or you wouldn't be able to see anyone."

 

Don Van Vliet (Captain Beefheart)

+1

Nice quote - always liked him.

Although to get this thread back onto a rational logical base and away from the bat-infested belfry of the OP I would say that logically that Beefy's statement does not follow; it should be we're all coloured, or you wouldn't be able to see everyone - ie the existence of a non-zero percentage of non-coloured people would only prevent you from seeing everybody- rather than preclude you from being able to see anyone.

Hopefully that piece of unimaginably obsessive pedantry will kill this thread stone dead.

Strange has definitively answered one of your questions (all numbers are either primes or multiples of primes) this is the Fundamental Theory of Arithmetic

The 30 gap thing is to do with the number system - but it is not that useful or interesting. Think on this and it will become obvious:

1. A prime number must be of the form 2w+1 (it must be odd (apart from 2 itself)

2. At the same time the prime must be of the form 3y+1 or 3y+2 (it cannot be divided by 3)

3. Still at the same time the prime must be of the form 5z+1, 5z+2, 5z+3, or 5z+4 (it cannot be divided by 5)

4. This pattern continues with 7, 9 ,11 ,13 etc as the prime grows

5. 30 is 2 x 3 x 5

6. So, if you already have a prime you are adding a simple multiple of 2s, 3s, and 5s to the prime

7. As an example (2w+1) + (2 x 3 x 5) = 2w+1 + 2 x 15 = 2(w+15) + 1 (ie still cannot be divided by 2)

8. This follows for 3 and for 5

9. In short - any number not divisible by 2 ,3 or 5 will when 30 is added still not be divisible

You will notice your +30 schema fails as soon as 7s start cropping up. (+210 will work too - but less often)

The reason that adding 30 again often gives a prime is that 30 is NOT divisible by any prime greater than 5. So you can know that if your (failed selection) is, for example divisible by 11, then (failed selection +30) CANNOT be divisible by 11.

Sooner or later adding 30 a second time will not work, but a third or fourth might. But hopefully you can see that this is not predictive of primes - or it is selectively predictive - but it is kinda obvious when you look at how numbers are made up and not useful because you still have to check

and much more !~ at 500 feet from the source. /,,, meaning < with H20

< has an example.

I don't think there is any more than a trace of H20 within the thermosphere. Certainly not enough to worry about a change in weather.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105287-ethical-q-split-from-can-fire-be-explained/