Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-06-2010, 05:36 AM #64
Smart Parts Player12
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article


I'm not trying to say that this is proof of God but it is interesting (to me) the incredible odds that all seemed to fall into perfect place.

Max Planck—"At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."—*Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the `miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1956), pp. 114-115.

Sir Isaac Newton—"The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;—but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits."—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), pp. 543-544.
Think about it this way. Those odds could have been wrong millions of times, and millions of universes were destroyed. We just happen to be the one that survived.
__________________
But if we get on the treadmill together, there's two things: You're getting off first, or I'm going to die. It's really that simple, right?
Smart Parts Player12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-09-2010, 02:59 AM #65
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
And initially, that's where I disagree. I'm suggesting, that knowledge is a means of logic.

If logic preceded knowledge in existence, (as you state...) than that would be like saying: It's possible to analyze the post before its ever created.

So, when you look at it from that aspect, you can then carry onward to what I was trying to mention earlier.

All I'm trying to do, is add an additional angle to what's already been discussed. I think that's what makes my posts confusing.
when I first saw this "knowlege preceding logic" argument I had allready formulated the opinion of "logic precedes knowlege" I attempted to write a post showing this. but I kept on landing on knowlege preceding reason.

for example. logic preceeds reason as observed by special relativity.

It was a completely new idea that had NO empirical evidence.

but einstein assumed c=constant

this idea was based on thermodynamics.


this pattern can be traced back to finding fire.

humans know NOT to touch fire because of history.

basically the chicken and the egg argument.

so logic is all derived from some form of knowlege, but even dogs no not to stick their snouts in fire, and I dont consider anything my dog does to be based on some sort of viable knowlege.
instinct, reflex, training and some wierd form of knowlege sure, but any real cognizant knowlege, no.


my point?

who knows.

Last edited by Dr.Phil.McGraw : 01-09-2010 at 03:02 AM.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 02:12 PM #66
Umami
Mad as a hatter
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article
Yes, but if you look at it from a scientific perspective (and don't bend it to your purpose), it might look a little different.

http://www.nature.com/scientificamer...an0110-42.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
for example. logic preceeds reason as observed by special relativity.

It was a completely new idea that had NO empirical evidence.

but einstein assumed c=constant

this idea was based on thermodynamics.
False. There were a few experiments that had suggested the speed of light was constant, Einstein was the one who took the idea and ran with it. In particular, see the Michelson-Morley experiment.

General relativity is the more impressive body of work, where special relativity was extended far beyond what would have been inferred from experiment, but it has been validated time and time again. For example, GPS Satellites are a running experiment in GR.

And quantum mechanics wouldn't exist were it not for experiment. There is nothing in our everyday existence that would suggest a wave nature to matter, and that's how we operated until we saw diffraction patterns when interfering beams of particles.

And seeing all this talk of logic has me surprised nobody's brought up the axiomatic approach of mathematics. Everything in math can be reduced to several axioms, which are not proven, but assumed to be true. Things like there exists a null, the axiom of power sets, there exists something we call infinity etc. Wikipedia it if you're curious, but there's nothing to argue about math as it is all logically founded on these axioms, and logic is logic. By definition it is true. For example, if you have an AND and a True and False input (simple state machine), your output is DEFINED to be False. By definition, that's the way AND works. Set theory (modern mathematics) is similar, there are operations that are defined by these axioms.

Edit: Better than wikipedia: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo...kelAxioms.html

Undermine the axioms and all is lost, but the rest of the thing isn't up for debate.

Discuss...
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 01-13-2010 at 02:52 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 03:26 PM #67
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
^ good post
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 07:31 PM #68
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Yes, but if you look at it from a scientific perspective (and don't bend it to your purpose), it might look a little different.

http://www.nature.com/scientificamer...an0110-42.html



False. There were a few experiments that had suggested the speed of light was constant, Einstein was the one who took the idea and ran with it. In particular, see the Michelson-Morley experiment.
...
michealson morley occured in tandem with einstein..... he did not base his work on that experiment as you insinuate.

the assumption of a constant c was apparant in thermo equations as I stated.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 09:52 PM #69
Umami
Mad as a hatter
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
michealson morley occured in tandem with einstein..... he did not base his work on that experiment as you insinuate.

the assumption of a constant c was apparant in thermo equations as I stated.
While it is true that Einstein didn't base his work on the Michelson-Morley experiment, a couple points.

1.) Michelson-Morley did occur before SR was published. I think it was almost 10 years prior.

2.) The constancy of the speed of light drops out directly from Maxwell's equations, Einstein's approach. As far as I know, SR was applied to thermo only after its formulation.

At the turn of the century Physicists thought they had it pretty much all figured out. HOWEVER, there were a few experiments that simply could not be resolved with theory, M-M being one of them. There was a considerable amount of effort being put forth in the field to rectify these inconsistencies.

While I agree it was a huge advancement, I am weary of people who think Einstein just pulled SR out of his ***. The words of Newton, "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants", apply just as well to Einstein.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 05:56 PM #70
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
While I agree it was a huge advancement, I am weary of people who think Einstein just pulled SR out of his ***. The words of Newton, "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants", apply just as well to Einstein.
Ironically, if there is anyone that quote does not apply to, it's Newton. He pulled the gravitational equations completely out of his butt. The laws of motion? Optics?

He was as novel as they come in physics. His quote really applies to most other scientists, just not as much himself. And I do think it applies to Einstein, but wasn't the fact that C was constant in all reference frames an inferential leap by Einstein?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2010, 06:35 PM #71
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
wasn't the fact that C was constant in all reference frames an inferential leap by Einstein?
laws of thermo dynamics remain constant in moving reference frame which is where he got c= constant idea from.

(as prev stated)


however unagi seems content in believing that michaelson morely inspired einstein.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2010, 03:18 PM #72
Umami
Mad as a hatter
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
laws of thermo dynamics remain constant in moving reference frame which is where he got c= constant idea from.

(as prev stated)


however unagi seems content in believing that michaelson morely inspired einstein.
Says the chemist. And it's Umami.

Read my posts again before you open your mouth again and risk sounding like an even bigger idiot. While SR had important implications in thermodynamics, it was not how einstein arrived at the theory.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm

And again, M-M occured long before SR was published. It wasn't how Einstein approached the problem, but it was a previously unexplained experimental result that supported the new theory.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 01-16-2010 at 03:21 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2010, 05:46 PM #73
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Says the chemist. And it's Umami.

Read my posts again before you open your mouth again and risk sounding like an even bigger idiot. While SR had important implications in thermodynamics, it was not how einstein arrived at the theory.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm

And again, M-M occured long before SR was published. It wasn't how Einstein approached the problem, but it was a previously unexplained experimental result that supported the new theory.
lol.

calm down unagi..... you can be king of the internet.

and whos a chemist?
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2010, 10:11 PM #74
Umami
Mad as a hatter
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
and whos a chemist?
So what exactally do you do at Harpo? Or am I missing a really funny internet joke...
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2010, 03:29 AM #75
ersio
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
cause physics is a study invented by humans (though it was already there, we were the ones who gave it a title of the rest of us to understand) so the true question is why did'nt WE make quantum mechanics measurable on a macro level?
ersio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2010, 03:39 AM #76
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by ersio View Post
cause physics is a study invented by humans (though it was already there, we were the ones who gave it a title of the rest of us to understand) so the true question is why did'nt WE make quantum mechanics measurable on a macro level?
interesting query.

but the REAL question has been, for the most part, entirely ignored.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 05:25 PM #77
Umami
Mad as a hatter
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Laniakea
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by ersio View Post
cause physics is a study invented by humans (though it was already there, we were the ones who gave it a title of the rest of us to understand) so the true question is why did'nt WE make quantum mechanics measurable on a macro level?
Wait, what? That's akin to asking "why didn't we make gravity repulsive instead of attractive?".

And quantum mechanics is very measureable on a macroscopic level. Measurements of quantum systems are performed on a regular basis.
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump