100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Quantum Physics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What is science today was once called "fantasy."
Stories of aliens with laser weapons, going to the moon, traveling in space.... all fantasy at one time. Now we are working on laser weapons, we went to the moon, we travel in space... fact and science. Yet you scientific types are quick to try to shut people up who dare to imagine outside of your world and you say "that is not science." "Imagination rules the world." quote from Einstein What do you call string theory? Is that fantasy or science? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 09/29/11 10:17 AM
|
|
What is science today was once called "fantasy." Stories of aliens with laser weapons, going to the moon, traveling in space.... all fantasy at one time. Now we are working on laser weapons, we went to the moon, we travel in space... fact and science. Yet you scientific types are quick to try to shut people up who dare to imagine outside of your world and you say "that is not science." "Imagination rules the world." quote from Einstein What do you call string theory? Is that fantasy or science? Fantasy has no methodology, science does. So no amount of fantasy reveals science, imagination is requisite, but without the methodology you get no where, in fact imagination with no structure causes more harm than good. What do you call string theory? A failure.
Its a bottom up approach that ignores observation. It is contra to the scientific method. It is more of a mathematical approach that takes a concept and tries desperately to match up to reality and falls short time after time for 30 some years. Now for 30 years of effort it has helped further the mathematics of topology, but has done nothing to further physics. In fact a solid argument can be made that it has eroded the physics community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I do know the difference between actual science (the methodology.)
I just think the two depend on each other to keep moving forward. You have to ask the question... "why did that happen?" and you have to start imagining then testing. A person with imagination and reason can solve a problem more efficiently than a computer sometimes because a computer does not think imaginatively. Although there is a line you can draw between the two, you can't really disconnect them. My opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree...
One can not expect good results unless one imagines the possibles. Yet one can also not expect good results if only imagination is applied. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i like getting voltage from water
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i like getting voltage from water Interesting thing. You get the best voltage from dirty or contaminated water. You can actually vary the voltage by what you contaminate the water with. Did you know that if you rotate water contaminated with a metal to the point of suspension through an electromagnetic field you get electricity? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It means that without a conscious observer, the universe will cease to exist. That's a huge leap. Do you have any evidence to back up this clame? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It means that without a conscious observer, the universe will cease to exist. That's a huge leap. Do you have any evidence to back up this clame? The two slits are setup perfectly to create the overlap of the two EM waves such that the particles follow the crests and troughs of the waves (Pilot wave), when you introduce other elements you get these waves out of sync and it causes the pattern to disappear. No magic needed. Action at a distance YES, but we already know the EM field exists through all space and this action at a distance is a given in physics now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In context an observer is that which interacts with the particle and collapses the wave function. Which makes no sense to say the universe is its own observer: nonsense. Physics deals with reality, not fantasy. You cant just make stuff up. It would be like claiming that the universe has a special frame of reference where there exists an absolute time, or a special perspective where light does not travel at light speed: nonsense, it breaks the theories that work. These concepts are wrong they do not work, we know becuase we can test it and becuase for them to be right too much that works would have to be wrong. Physics is in an interesting place, not a good one in my opinion. Popular science sells, but think for a moment do you ever see a popular science chemistry book claiming that you can live forever . . . Deepak chopra style? What about a popular science biology book? Do you see people in forums talking about how chemistry backs up there own spiritual notions of reality? I have not. There is no industry for chemists to make up stuff and sell it for the woo woo crowd. Physics however, now becuase no one can visualize an entangled particle, or becuase they do not understand pilot wave Bohmian mechanics its easy to get a skin deep understanding and just make up stuff from there, then you just use word association to fit it to any idea you could possibly want. Well science does not work like that. We have an influx fiction writers trying to explain physics, its a mess. Not to worry Bushidobillyclub. The science you speak of is safe. It works inside of this space-time reality, and only inside this space-time reality. There are other dimensions that do not operate in the same space-time. Our notion of science restricts itself to this single space-time reality. Anything that is not called "science" here is labeled "fantasy." Therein lie the boundaries of our scientific thinking and laws. Its called "the box" that you can't think outside of. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/07/11 10:34 AM
|
|
It means that without a conscious observer, the universe will cease to exist. That's a huge leap. Do you have any evidence to back up this clame? If you mean run of the mill "scientific" evidence accepted by academia,... no, of course not. 
Unless you accept quantum mechanics and how a wave and a particle act as evidence. But I'm sure you don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are other dimensions that do not operate in the same space-time. You always do this, speak as if you could possibly know this, yet do not even know how one would go about knowing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/07/11 01:20 PM
|
|
There are other dimensions that do not operate in the same space-time. You always do this, speak as if you could possibly know this, yet do not even know how one would go about knowing this.
I don't know how to tell anyone to go about knowing this. I know it by my own experience in time displacement where I experienced about 10 minutes of thinking in the span of a milli-second. I have other reasons for saying so but if you ask for "scientific" proof according to your laws of physics for this dimension, I have to say "no." I don't have that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 10/07/11 01:32 PM
|
|
Then you do not really know, your just making stuff up that makes sense to you. That is not knowing, things feel right is not validation.
Experiences are not facts. Experiences can reflect reality they can also NOT reflect reality. In the Science and philosophy forum saying you know something needs to mean something other than making stuff up that feels right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/07/11 01:31 PM
|
|
I know what I experienced, I may not know how to explain it.
I don't "make stuff up" I will attempt to explain my own personal experience. Of course whether a time displacement is because of a some other dimension .... I don't know. Can the brain process thought close to the speed of light and have it seem to be normal time? If it can, then I wonder if a person could develop this as a skill? It would be a unique skill to be able to do that at will. If I did it once, (and it saved my life BTW) I should be able to do it again if I knew how. Scientifically speaking anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 10/07/11 01:36 PM
|
|
You do not know what happened is the only honest answer.
Scientifically speaking anyway. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/07/11 02:00 PM
|
|
You do not know what happened is the only honest answer. I know what happened, and I know why it happened, but what I don't know is HOW it happened. If I did it once, I should be able to do it again. That's my thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its like the story of the woman who lifted a car off of her child. There is no way that should have been possible, yet she did it.
They tried to recreate the event, and they failed. But there has to be a reason she could do that the first time, unless you believe in miracles and some angel was helping her lift the car. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do not know what happened is the only honest answer. Scientifically speaking anyway. Not even close.
Not even close? I'm talking about repeat-ability here, which is what they do in science. Right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I could engage in what seemed like 10 minutes of "thinking" and having a conversation with myself in a single nano-second of real time once, then logically I should be able to figure out how to do that little trick at will.
I'm still working on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/07/11 02:10 PM
|
|
I'm thinking it is some kind of unconscious to conscious communication going on that happens in a micro-second and is so important, it is remembered clearly by the conscious mind.
Or else I have entered a reality (or dimension) that does not have the same time as this one does. It seemed like time had stopped, but I think it was just moving at a different speed. |
|
|
|
|
