granpa

they answered your question perfectly. you are asking me to defend something that I never asserted. it is absurd. not to mention off topc

your question is absurd. I neither said nor thought nor implied any such thing. your misrepresenting what I said just so you can argue with me. the post I linked you to explains it perfectly. if its too much trouble for you to go there and read it then I will post it here:

I never said anything of the sort. maybe you should read this post: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2036985#post2036985

what?? go back and read post 32. we were talking about simulating 'those entities' that dont have the property of space. now you are talking about 'the universe'. make up your mind.

I dont know what you mean. a computer could easily simulate what I am talking about. but obviously you cant visualize a system that doest have the property of space.

470 m/s in the ionosphere? I dont think so.

these entities wouldnt have that property. stop trying to visualize it. you cant visualize it because it isnt visual. its a concept. you conceive of it.

well now that I think about it, even the earth should produce such a wind from its ionosphere. the speed of ions in the ionosphere must be far greater than the escape velocity of the earth.

surface winds?? surely the meaning of my question was obvious. I'm asking if jupiter gives off a stream of plasma the same way that the sun does.

does jupiter have a jovian wind equivalent of the solar wind of the sun?

if the ether is not empirically observable then it should be ignored. to do otherwise is unscientific. nothing could be gained by trying to understand it.

no moneypoo. science should be content to merely observe and describe.

well yeah. by 'simulate the universe' I meant 'how we would hypothetically simulate the universe in a computer if we had a computer big enough'. I was really thinking in terms of simulating molecules.

this is a perfect example of people on the internet always taking everything others say in the worst possible sense. if I had said we must answer the question of 'what' things are and not just worry about 'how' things work then you would have argued vehemently with me saying that science answers 'how' not 'why'. to program a computer all we need to know is 'how' things behave. computers know 'how' to do what you tell them to do but they dont know 'what' they are doing so what good would it do to tell it 'what' things are? do we need to know if there is an ether to know how to simulate fields? no. we just need to know how the fields interact. moreover my point was that different theories should be judged by the results they give when used in a simulation. also we should stop saying things like quantum mechanics doesnt make sense so it must be wrong. if a computer can be programmed with it and the simulation gives the right results then we shouldnt worry about whether it 'makes sense' or not.

obviously thats what I was getting at with post 13 but as I've said elsewhere I think we shouldnt even be asking what the fundamental nature of reality 'really' is. I think we should just concentrate on how we would simulate the universe in a computer. once we figure out 'how' it works then we can argue over 'what' it really is.

back? when did we leave it? whats behind it? who knows. maybe this:

you mean that space must end somewhere? that misconception is exactly what this whole thread is about.

complex loops of such 'entities' could oscillate between different states much like the 'strings' of string theory. if such a complex structure seems unlikely then consider the vast number of 'bits' involved. after only 1000 divisions there would be 2^1000 bits. thats far more the number of protons that would fit in the observable universe. now imagine 10^40 divisions. and before this thread gets totally off topic I want to link to these posts of mine: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897259&postcount=7 why do you assume that it came from nothing? why not from everything? time wasnt created. being created would require time. you can only go back so far. to the very beginning. and then you just cant go back any further. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897278&postcount=12 neither in duration nor in divisibility. time like everything else is finite and discrete. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1897303&postcount=18 time will never end but at no time will an infinite amount of time have passed. this is just common sense.

I've been meaning for some time to link to these 2 posts but figured nobody would read it in our universe a particle could divide into 2 identical particles. but they wouldnt really be identical because they would have different positions. in such a universe as described above there is no such thing as 'position'. so it would be meaningless to say that a particle had divided into 2 if the 2 resulting particles were not distinguishable in some way.

obviously. that is my thinking too. but I was responding to this from post 5 if your not going to follow the discussion then please dont comment on it. I have nothing further to say.

what assertion? nobodyknows for certain where they came from. thats why I said 'apparently' (it appears to me). if you dont believe that then fine. thats your opinion and its noted. this is my last post in this thread.

that isnt a reason to suspect that nipples evolved after pouches did?

you havent been following the discussion. I pointed out that nipples apparently evolved from the area of the pouch that the joey attaches to. he said that current thinking is that placentals and marsupials evolved independently. so I said that pouches could conceivably have evolved separately in the northern and sounthern hemispheres.

milk evolved before live birth but after the evolution of pouches. pouches (which are presumably adaptations to cold) could conveivably have evolved independently in the northern and southern hemispheres.

marsupials could have evolved independently in the arctic and antarctic. arctic marsupials could then have evolved into placentals. the big question to me is why the arctic and antarctic took such different paths.