Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: BURT on 8 Mar 2010 23:29 On Mar 8, 8:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 8:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > > > 1. Don't the terms "causality" and "determinism" actually mean the > > exact same thing? If processes follow the rules of causality, then the > > outcomes are also determined, aren't they? People tend not to like > > determinism, because they see it as negating free will. But wouldn't > > you say that determinism is something quite different from *pre- > > *determinism, which is more a destiny kind of thing? So shouldn't > > science-minded people embrace the term "determinism" just as much as > > we do "causality"? > > > 2. In your opinion, do the terms "simplicity" and "complexity" need > > particular definitions in each case of use in order to make sense? > > Isn't it obvious to anybody that mammals are more complex than, say, > > amphibians? That the brain is more complex than a stone? That a > > computer is more complex than an abacus? That a gold atom is more > > complex than a hydrogen atom? Do we need to define simplicity/ > > complexity any further than to degree of atomic/biological/ > > technological organization? > > > 3. About the dual nature of a wave/particle; when a particle and an > > anti-particle annihilate and become energy, does this represent a real > > transition from matter to energy? Or does "energy" here just mean a > > jumble of teensy-weensy elementary particles? If the particles really > > become energy, do we know exactly how? What "releases" the matter from > > its material shackles and lets it become energy? And for that matter, > > are we really sure that photons, etc. have a dual nature, and that > > they don't just become particles when they need to interact with > > something as particles, i.e. that they are actually not waves and > > particles at the same time, but can change between those states > > depending on the environmental circumstances? > > > Are you confused yet? :-) I'm just trying to adjust my own > > understanding by finding out if there is something resembling an > > established consensus about these things. > > > - Tue Sorensen > > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. I named > the material mather. In terms of E=mc^2, it is the mather > transitioning from matter to aether and the expansion in volume > associated with the mather which is energy. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. The energy given off in nuclear fission and > fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > The mass still exists in nature after a particle and anti-particle are > 'annihilated'. The matter which was the mass still exists, as aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can pick a point of an energy element in a bond and it has finite energy density similar to the way light's energy spreads out when it oscillates. Mass is infinitely dense and kinetic energy is mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: Erik Max Francis on 8 Mar 2010 23:54 Tue Sorensen wrote: > I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an > insatiable thirst for knowledge. ... > > One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and > energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), And you've already been told in this very thread only day before yesterday that photons and energy are not the same thing. After being given a blatantly obvious example (namely, potential energy) that demonstrates that the idea can't be right, you claimed at the time to understand this and take it into account: "Okay, that's a good point. I'll have to give that some thought." But here you, repeating the incorrect nonsense again, as a premise for kicking off the rest of your ramblings. We don't have read further; first error in your reasoning means that you've got to start over. I submit your insatiable thirst for knowledge isn't going so well. Whether you're really thirsty or not (you keep insisting that somehow your ignorance of current theory is an asset -- which implies not), it's quite obvious that you're not trying very hard. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis The opinion of the strongest is always the best. -- Jean de la Fontaine
From: Tue Sorensen on 9 Mar 2010 00:10 On 9 Mar., 05:54, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an > > insatiable thirst for knowledge. ... > > > One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > > themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and > > energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), > > And you've already been told in this very thread only day before > yesterday that photons and energy are not the same thing. After being > given a blatantly obvious example (namely, potential energy) that > demonstrates that the idea can't be right, you claimed at the time to > understand this and take it into account: "Okay, that's a good point. > I'll have to give that some thought." > > But here you, repeating the incorrect nonsense again, as a premise for > kicking off the rest of your ramblings. We don't have read further; > first error in your reasoning means that you've got to start over. > > I submit your insatiable thirst for knowledge isn't going so well. > Whether you're really thirsty or not (you keep insisting that somehow > your ignorance of current theory is an asset -- which implies not), it's > quite obvious that you're not trying very hard. I'm not very impressed with your non-existent inclination to enlighten me, either. - Tue
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 00:13 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 9 Mar., 05:54, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen wrote: >>> I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an >>> insatiable thirst for knowledge. ... >>> One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared >>> themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and >>> energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), >> And you've already been told in this very thread only day before >> yesterday that photons and energy are not the same thing. After being >> given a blatantly obvious example (namely, potential energy) that >> demonstrates that the idea can't be right, you claimed at the time to >> understand this and take it into account: "Okay, that's a good point. >> I'll have to give that some thought." >> >> But here you, repeating the incorrect nonsense again, as a premise for >> kicking off the rest of your ramblings. We don't have read further; >> first error in your reasoning means that you've got to start over. >> >> I submit your insatiable thirst for knowledge isn't going so well. >> Whether you're really thirsty or not (you keep insisting that somehow >> your ignorance of current theory is an asset -- which implies not), it's >> quite obvious that you're not trying very hard. > > I'm not very impressed with your non-existent inclination to enlighten > me, either. Can you read? You mean the part I mentioned just above where I pointed out why your mistaken impression on the relation between photons and energy was wrong and gave an example that demonstrated it enough that (at the time) acknowledged it must be true? That kind of "non-existent inclination to enlighten you," when I actually enlightened you? You forgetting what you were just taught is not my fault. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Punctuality is the virtue of the bored. -- Evelyn Waugh
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 00:23
Mike Ash wrote: > In article > <5d3fa520-4dd5-4f84-8bee-b5e9367ad48e(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> If you need an entire book to describe your "theories", then >>> that's a bad sign in and of itself. See for example, Wolfram, Stephen, >>> _A New Kind of Science_. >> Sounds exhausting. I am using other books. > > I think you misunderstand: _A New Kind of Science_ is a gigantic book > filled with nonsense (or so I am given to believe, I have not actually > read it myself), an example of the principle that enormous books that > claim to overthrow the established order are just BS. It's not all nonsense, but its claims to overthrow science certainly are. The first chapter is actually a fairly well-presented introduction to systems that people play with (cellular automata, Lindenmayer systems, etc.) that could generally be grouped under the subject of "artificial life," something that I've been interested in for a long time. At least, it would be a good introduction if you didn't know much about it already (only a few genuinely new systems are presented that aren't covered elsewhere in the literature), and if you didn't care about learning what other people call it (Wolfram bizarrely insists on using his own names for things that already have perfectly good names, though they don't include his name in them -- e.g., calling Lindenmayer as "substitution systems" instead). The rest of the (extremely long) book is essentially a continuous repetition of the idea that surprisingly simple systems can lead to surprisingly complex behavior, given with numerous examples and phrased slightly differently. While true, it's hard to see how this qualifies an intellectual paradigm that will override much of anything in science, much less be widely taught to schoolchildren in our lifetimes (one of his more outrageous claims). So in that sense it is quite a good example of what you're talking about. And, even when said clearly sarcastically, he still didn't get it. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Punctuality is the virtue of the bored. -- Evelyn Waugh |