Interesting.

"..But there are limits, experts say. As chips get smaller and smaller, scientists expect that the bizarre laws and behaviors of quantum physics will take over, making ever-smaller chips impossible."

Perhaps science has reached the bottom of the pale where the physical universe is concerned. That being... quantum physics.

Its true eventually we will . . . but then we just need to make breakthroughs in Quantum computing to move forward.

Yeah really.

You're probably right, but I ran into the same email block that you did.

I don't even recall exactly what I posted. But the main point it that phiolosphy is phiolosphy and physics is physics.

While physics sparks thoughts in philosophy and vice versa, ultimatly I don't believe that either one can answer the problems in the other.

And many a man has fallen into the vortex between them including myself.

And like a black hole it can be very difficult to escape from.

I probably should have just stated that more generically in the previous posts.

I lack good social skills. That's why I'm a nerd.

Do you have any ideas what these breakthrough might be?

Use your imagination. Go wild.

I would like to discover a cure for lycanthropy

Thank you James...

I assure you that I have no ill feelings towards you. In response to your answering the request that I gave you to quote my words I have the following to add to that aspect...

You gave the following two things, albeit a little short of context, but none-the-less these were the given reasons to support your prior and continued conclusion regarding my personal understanding of relativity...

I had said...



I believe that I had already mentioned how the popular rubber membrane analogy failed for me...

Einstein' special relativity is based upon euclidian geometry(flat). Einstein's general theory also calls for spacetime which is devoid of matter and/or fields to be flat as well. That was why I asked the question.



General relativity also calls for conclusions which any physicist worth his/her salt knows are not true, cannot be true!!!



Then you followed up with...



There is nothing one-dimensional about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Clearly you fail to understand it. You've seen a one-dimensional analogy in a book that was trying to simplify the ideas for the reader and you've somehow taken that to be a precise representation of GR. It is not. Therefore you misunderstand the theory. In fact its extremely unlikely that you're truly going to understand the theory of GR in great detail just by reading a couple of books that are designed for laymen.

A few things here, James...

One is you trust your own judgement(false assumption) capabilities about this author far too much...

Two is I had already mentioned the analogy...

Three is as I have already mentioned... according to GR spacetime without matter and fields is flat.

Ahhh... and my joke which follows...




I am glad that it served it's purpose...




Sure there is... would you like me to prove it to you???

Be careful here James... think about the past...



The long posts, which you are well-known for, are much more fun to read when they are accurately describing something other than your misguided personal thought processes about another...

This is not true.

You're thinking in terms of clumped matter. If the matter or engery is homogeneous throughout the spacetime then there's no reason for it to warp.

Moreover, it's physically meaningless to talk about spacetime that is devoid of any mass or energy. At that point you'd have nothing but an idea of pure thought. (not a physical universe).



This is only true when QM becomes important. We already know that GR and QM are incompatible and something's got to give.

We already know, and I have already conceded that GR is 'incomplete'.

But you keep saying that it's "wrong".

That I disagree with. Being incomplete is not the same as being "wrong". It could simply need to be extended similar to the way that Newtonian gravity was extended when GR was developed.



My comments were made within the context of physics because that's what we were discussing.

When I said that there is no absolute truth, I meant with respect to discoving the physical nature of this universe.

And I tried to make that perfectly clear with the following comments:



I wrote that specfically to illustrate the kind of 'absolute truth' that cannot philosophically exist.

That's not to say that you can't come up with some fundamental philosophical truth that could be applicable to all universes.

What I'm saying is that you can't build on that to arrive specifically at this universe without also being guided by observation and experience.

Because, like I say, if you did, that would imply that this universe is the only possible way to construct a universe.

Of course, if you want to believe in that limitation then I supposed that's your choice.

I've already stated that I don't believe that's the case.

If you feel otherwise, then I guess that just leaves us with different beliefs.

For those interested in this conversation but would like some more info here are some great videos by professional institutions.

Relativity

UC Berkley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNgzqpKZwhE


Stanford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY



QM

Stanford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1E3YJMKfA

UC Berkley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsnEUApVHgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbiQ61NScU0

Awesome Jeremy. I just recently got a new speaker and I am very much interested in these.

Thank you! I'll be looking at these too!

Your Welcome!

I have not even watched the Stanford ones in full, I am just as interested!

Oy! watching the first 10 minutes of the Stanford relativity one looks like some maths!

Krimsa Im glad to hear you can hear now I can send you all kinds of stuff hehe.

I'm really depressed.

I've been trying to get DSL here for almost 5 years now and no luck. I live back in the sticks. You wouldn't think that's possible in Pennsylvania but it is.

I can't even do satellite because I live in the middle of a tall dark enchanted forest.

In fact, even my phone lines are antiquated.

There is a college in town though and they have DSL on their computers in the library. I could go over there and download these to a CD I spose. Then come home and watch them at my leisure with the faeries of the woods.

I got through the Berkely/Relativiy one. I thought it was excellent. It cleared up several things that were confusing to me about relativity. And the only math he used was like high school level Algebra. Can't wait to get to the others.

Yea the Berkley ones are Physics for Future presidents course, which is structured for people who will NEVER be physicists.

So its a great course to get a handle on the topic without being overwhelmed with math.

Cool... thanks Billy.

Truly though, I cannot access it through my current available connection... besides that I usually get a deeper understanding from choosing good books and reading and re-reading and re-re-reading, etc...

I am in the middle of Hawking's newest one now...


James, my friend..

As we are both aware, we do not see things eye to eye on some of the matters concerning Einstein's relativity or QM. I am confident that you are at ease with this fact as much as I am. No worries...

Normally I do not intentionally comment about the personal nature of another author, however because of my fondness for your oft hidden character, I have chosen to do so on this occasion. Sometimes I just wonder where and how your responses are formulated. There are times when your answer has gone so far away from what I actually said, think, and/or feel about the subject at hand that I have to sit and wonder whether or not we are having the same conversation.

I have decided to not deliberately criticize your responses just because they differ from my own, but you have repeatedly dismissed the sources of my education(which differ at times from your expressions) as well as myself. The number one reason that I have been placid throughout this is clear within my frame of reference. I see no benefit from what could be a humiliating situation for us both, for a variety of different reasons. I think that I recognized your good intent within the earlier apology, but I wonder anymore.

Have you ever asked me the name of any book which I have read concerning Quantum Mechanics or Relativity???

Have you ever asked me who the author's were?

What is the gain?

I love to learn.

Peace, my friend...

I can clearly see that we are indeed miscommunicating to an extreme degree.

I don't recall having ever dismissed the sources of your education even once much less repeatedly.

In any case, I agree that we are not producing constructive conversations so perhaps we should avoid discussing physics altogether. We apparently have significantly different approaches to the subject that appear to be completely incompatible.

And yes, I assure you that there are no ill feelings at this end either and never were.

Ah...my friend, I knew that there could be an acceptable treaty between us.

For anyone else who would like to continue a productive GR discussion,there will be a new thread on it.

Thanks...

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.

No treaties will be acceptable here. Commence silly bickering you two!!