Jump to content

MolotovCocktail

Senior Members
  • Posts

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MolotovCocktail

  1. All of my dreams are really weird. They all have the same people every time, and most of the time they do abysmally stupid things.

     

    In some dreams, I'm always alone in some field that stretches on to infinity, or sometimes I'm alone in some city (like there is literally no people in there).

  2. I think that says it all. Most of the contributors to this forum have not even considered these essays. Most haven't even read them.

     

    Yes, Farsight, I have read all of them and the commentary that resulted after them. Your essays are filled with the same misunderstandings and false assumptions, and are not backed by any evidence whatsoever. And you keep contradicting yourself in all of these threads when we ask for evidence. I am commenting on these because I feel the need to educate the ignorant.

  3. Wrong. You cannot move through time. I can move through space. Would you like to prove me wrong? Easy. OK I've just hopped back back a metre. Now you hop back a second.

     

    So what if you can't move backwards through time. Just because you can't move backwards through anything doesn't mean you can't move through it. We are moving forward in time.

     

    A lot. The point is that the optical illusion is that A and B are different when in fact they're the same. There's another illusion going on with your concept of time, and it's so total, you take it so much for granted, that you can't even think about it. All you can do is repeat the mantra that you've been taught from an early age. This ppsychology of belief is why we have suicide bombers, and it's actually more prevalent thank you might think.

     

    No, actually our concept of time is based on experimental evidence. We are not obliged to rethink our concept of time unless experiment suggests otherwise. And also remember that the results have consistently shown that our concept of time is what we say it it.

     

    An optical illusion is not when A and B are the same. An optical illusion occurs when your brain is fooled into perceiving images to be one thing when in fact they are something else. What you perceive may not agree with what is measured. It has nothing to do with providing proof of your concepts.

     

    I will not comment on your knowledge of psychology. Rest assured, you have not demonstrated that you understand that.

  4. Energy cannot be created when one needs it, in fact it cannot be created period. Money, on the other hand, is created and put into circulation. When you create too many dollar bills, this results in inflation. The same cannot be said for energy.

     

    But hey, if you want to put it to the test, I have a very large, 56 inch wide screen TV that needs to be moved from one room to another. And I'll pay 56 J per hour :P.

     

     

    I've seen no physics from you.

     

    Ditto!

  5. yeah, but due to the vacuum of space the total destruction radius is significantly shorter. even for your standard space shuttle.

     

    I'm not so sure about this. A nuclear bomb is so powerful that our atmosphere cannot absorb the blast. It unleashes an EMP due to this (by knocking electrons from the gases in our atmosphere). The fact that the blast wave isn't absorbed is also why the bomb is detonated above the target to increase it's effectiveness

  6. Yes, all observers will always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, no problem. This is clearly the crux of the issue. If you've been following the thread you'll have spotted that it really hasn't been dealt with. If I'm experiencing gravitational time dilation such that I age one year whilst you age seven, my light has travelled one light year whilst yours has travelled seven light years. I assert that for this to happen, my c was one seventh of yours. Can you counter this?

     

    You are under the mistaken belief that light defines time, when in fact it doesn't. Time is a fundamental structure of our universe, a physical dimension in which event occur in sequence. Like any other physical dimension, things can move through it and it is defined by measurements. If you were to age one year as you accelerated while I age seven, c will remain unchanged. In fact, there is no "your" c, just as there is no preferred frame of reference. c is not variable, for reasons that I and a bunch of others have already explained.

     

    Another thing I want to add is that a light year is a measurement of length. A light year is about 9.5 trillion km long. It is called a light year because it takes light one year to travel that distance.

     

     

    Remember that this essay comes under the heading RELATIVITY+.

     

     

    A superficial statement is not a legitimate defense of your essay.

  7. Another thing that I was thinking as well is that since we now have the genome mapped out, we can evolve ourselves in ways that will allow us to survive almost anything. I'm thinking that while the future of homo sapian sapian is rather short nowadays, humanity as a whole, what ever it may evolve into, will continue to pass its genetic code throughout several billion years, maybe even evolving into something else all together. If and when we colonize space, we would surely evolve into something that is much more likely to adapt to the sudden change in environment (it has been suggested that people living in space stations should be born with 4 arms and no legs to adapt to zero or little gravity). wAlso consider that in a few years it will be possible to put computer implants into the human brain, thereby enhancing our intelligence. Also, it has been predicted that we will be able to create machines as smart as humans as early as 2030.

     

    I do not believe that humanity can be wiped out at this point. But I do believe that civilization as it exists may be wiped out. But you have to remember that even though catastrophes have occurred throughout history like the Black Plague and the collapse of early civilizations such as Egypt and Rome, the knowledge accumulated by those civilizations was not lost, it either splintered or moved on to other, more stable regions where it was preserved, translated and improved on.

  8. Yes it is, because of his Princeton years with Godel. This is what Einstein might have come up with remember? It just won't do to discount everything Einstein said or thought post 1916 to protect your stance.

     

    So, tell me, how do you know what Einstein might have come up with. He might have done a lot of things. However, he came up with a theory that is consistent with observation and made predictions.

     

    RELATIVITY+

     

    That time is a relative measure of change

     

     

     

    Time is not a relative measure of change. Time is a physical dimension in which events occur in sequence. Like any other dimension, things move through it and measurements of it can be made.

     

    And what do optical illusions have anything to do with the theory of relativity? An optical illusion occurs because your brain tries to make order of the oncoming information that it is processing.

     

    I can list much more than this, but the others have already pointed those flaws and incorrect statements out.

  9. Very interesting stuff. And yes, its obvious that I don't really know much about evolution, which is why I posted this.

     

    I'll clarify. it isn't a positive to occupy the macro niches of an ecology anymore than the micro niches. Small rodents and insectivores and so on haven't been out competed by primates, carnivores, ungulates. Being 'big' (large mammals, dinosaurs) isn't 'dominating' an ecology. There is much more biodiversity and longevity of orders, classes and phyla of organisms as one moves towards 'small'.

     

    You know, I never quite understood that until now. I guess its because the schools focus a lot more on the controversy of it rather than what it actually is or means :rolleyes:

     

    But I do have more questions though. One thing I've been wondering was the diversity of dinosaur species that have been found across the planet. It seems to me that they were the same everywhere, no matter what continent you found them on. Did the various types of dinosaurs survive only on the geographical location where they had the best chance of survival? And also, did each individual kind only survive in one kind of environment but not another, much like the way that lions (a mammal) could only survive in the savannas of Africa.

  10. I guess I'll give it a shot...

     

    Alright, the root of your misunderstanding, Farsight, seems to be this:

     

    1)Your belief that c is variable

    2)Your lack of knowledge and understanding of relativity.

    3)Nonexistent proof to back any of your theories, and the fact that what you posted technically isn't a theory...

     

    1. I'll tackle the first one. First off, c is a constant, of which you have been told many times over in all of the other posts. The speed of light doesn't change, and it is not relative to any observer. All observers will agree on the speed that light travels. Depending on their frame of reference, they will disagree on the distance a beam of light has traveled, and they will also disagree on the time it has taken to travel from point A to point B as well. This phenomenon has been verified by many experiments, especially by the Michelson–Morley experiment (They put beams of light at right angles at one another to determine properties of the supposed aether, but found that light always traveled at c independently of what they did). In addition, the value of c has been calculated to be a constant several decades before that experiment by Maxwell. c is not variable and all observers will agree on the speed of light no matter their frame of reference.

     

    2. I don't understand it well enough to actually be able to explain it to you in a way that makes sense, so I'll post a link about it right here: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/specialRT/index.html. This link will teach you about relativity and is intended for the general audiences. It also includes general relativity and its applications, and I have checked it for credibility. But in a nutshell, the Special Theory of Relativity is a theory that explains the nature of light, inertial and accelerating frames, and the nature of time. This theory states that time is relative to the observer just like space (which means that it is a physical dimension just like space, hence it is called spacetime). When one accelerates to near light speeds, the person's time will contract (which is why it goes slower for the person that is traveling and ages less than the person who is not accelerating). It also includes the principle that there is no absolute rest (A Newtonian concept), just as there is no absolute time, that all observers will agree on. And the reason it is called "Special" is because it does not take gravity into account and works only in inertial frames.

     

    3. In all of your threads, you have shown and continue to refuse to show any proof, experimental data, and mathematics for your so-called "theories". Also, you have relied on analogies to explain what they are. Analogies are not explanations. Analogies are used to reinforce understanding of a concept and put it into perspective. They are not to be confused with explanations, data, and proofs.

    A good scientific theory is something that can:

    1) Explain various natural phenomena consistently

    2) Be verified by experimental data

    3) Make predictions

    It is interesting to note that if even one thing or observation contradicts the theory, it either has to be modified or scrapped. The reason standard theories work is because they meet all of the above criterion and they haven't been disproven by experiments or observations. Also note that they will always remain theories because they have to be consistently proven by experiment.

    Your theories, on the other hand, do not do a good job explaining, and do not take into account various other natural phenomena (your assumptions are wrong in any case), aren't backed up by experiments or mathematics or any other proofs, and most importantly, they do not make any predictions. For all intents and purposes, it isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis, since a hypothesis makes predictions. As such, this isn't and cannot be the correct explanation for gravity. If you hope for anybody here to even consider this as a theory, never mind an alternative explanation, you have to meet all of the above criterion. Otherwise, we will not consider them to be a legitimate explanation.

  11. Has anyone ever wondered about the psychology behind procrastination? Its something we all do without thinking about it, but I sometimes wonder what mechanisms are responsible for such a thing. Especially since we all know that it doesn't really do us any good. I personally find that it is a temporary solution to anxiety...

×
×
  • 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.