Strange

Senior Members
  • Content count

    16047
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2728 Glorious Leader

About Strange

  • Rank
    SuperNerd

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    珈琲店
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Occupation
    Engineer/Writer

Recent Profile Visitors

35882 profile views
  1. So can we assume you have moved on from the original question? Do you consider that answered?
  2. Did Neanderthals Speak?

    Interesting article suggesting that human speech goes back long before H. sapiens: http://www.babelsdawn.com/babels_dawn/2018/02/sprechen-sie-neanderthal.html
  3. science is subfield of philosophy

    You’re right. It was MarkE who asked about objects. I can’t see any significant difference (in terms of being an object) between an apparent or real horizon. Which is why I was puzzled you brought it up (that was you, wasn't it?) Huh? These are both explained without needing any interaction with particles. How do you explain Doppler shift in terms of particle interaction? It is trivially explained by relative speed. Why would you need to invent some sort of interaction? That's crazy. That doesn’t make much sense. Do you know what logic is? This is the sort of idiotic argument we get from creationists (“if you can’t do it in a lab, it isn’t science”) An experiment can be a set of observations used to test a hypothesis. So obviously cosmology is based on scientific evidence. The same people who “decide” (or prove) which rules of arithmetic are correct. (Which, in practice, means philosophers and mathematicians.)
  4. I watched from 4:20 to 6:20 and there is nothing about light deflecting off itself. (Because it doesn't.)
  5. Then could you clarify what I am missing, please. Are you saying there are (valid, complete) equations which are not dimensionally consistent? If so can you provide a clear example? Or are you saying that your various digressions are not random and have a clear purpose? In which case, could make that purpose clearer? You have made a few posts along the line of "what about this ..." Where the only response is "what about it". But then you don't explain what you were thinking of. For example, you posted an assignment statement from a programming language. This is syntactically similar to an equation but isn't one. What was the point to be made there? (But, of course, it was dimensionally consistent anyway. Many languages include type checking to ensure this is the case.)
  6. Why? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case? Really? Can you demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case? Can you show this simple mathematics? Your description doesn't make much sense, maybe the maths will make it clearer.
  7. I still don't see the relevance of this. Any equations using these relationships (meaningful or not) will still need to be dimensionally consistent. And the equation describing the relationship of that new quantity to distance and time will be dimensionally consistent. I have lost track of the point of the thread. The answer to the original question is, obviously, "yes". Everyone, including you seems to agree with that. You haven't produced any counter-examples. But you have taken it off in various random tangents for no apparent purpose. (Apart, I suppose, from the fun of a free ranging discussion.)
  8. Evolution

    That appears to confirm that humans are a different genus than other primates. So I'm not sure what "not true" refers to.
  9. Yes, but the question was about scientific equations. And, if they are scientific, they shouldn't be meaningless. (Depending on the definition of "meaningless" perhaps.)
  10. graviton / space / dark matter / dark energy ?

    Doh. Of course it is. I don't know what I was talking about!
  11. The definition of nothingness exactly

    You keep repeating something that you have been repeatedly told is not true. And you are inventing much of the "evidence" (such as the creation of the universe).
  12. graviton / space / dark matter / dark energy ?

    If gravitons exist and they were close enough to a black hole (within the photon sphere) then, yes, they would fall into it. That would be because of space-time curvature, not the cause of it. Not necessarily. I think that, like most massive particles, they would rapidly decay. So they would only be created temporarily in high energy interactions. Not quite. But the graviton would be a quantum of disturbance on the space-time field. I don't think gravitons would be stable enough to be dark matter. They are massless, so couldn't be dark matter. Also, most models of dark matter are "cold" meaning that the particles move at significantly less than light speed, which would also rule out gravitons. But you mention virtual particles, and I don't think any virtual particles can be dark matter. They are not really particles at all, just a mathematical abstraction for describing interactions.
  13. The definition of nothingness exactly

    There is no reason to believe that.
  14. The definition of nothingness exactly

    Only if you believe it was created. And believe in a " transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property". I see no reason to believe either of those things.