Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"as a scientist I agree with you it is beyond belief unless he means the box will rot away and the diamond will not. " No, he meant what I said he meant mun.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the diamond turned into Schrödinger's cat "thats it couldnt think of the name | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the diamond turned into Schrödinger's cat "Lets squash this one too, the fekkin cat was dead, it was an ex-cat, it had dropped off the perch... it was deceased!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the diamond turned into Schrödinger's cat
Lets squash this one too, the fekkin cat was dead, it was an ex-cat, it had dropped off the perch... it was deceased! "But was it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive !" I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you could trace the theory and evidence supporting it then it would be easier to evaluate. Remember, don't expect proof, just evidence that supports theories." My point exactly, where's his supporting evidence ffs? Given that we can do things on a microscopic level now, someone surely could have done this in a lab with microns etc... but no, nothing, he's making shit up. I. on the other hand, aint.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very interested to read this thread. It reinforces a perception I have about Brian Cox that has been developing recently, in that I have serious doubts as to his academic ability. Most recently, a few weeks ago I heard him explain on BBC Radio Wales (in response to a question asking why the Moon is sometimes a circle and other times is banana shaped) that the phases of the Moon are caused by the shadow of the Earth on its surface..! I was amazed. " See, I am in no doubt that he's a brainy fooker, with all the bells and whistles... but on the occasion in question I think he may have spied an opportunity for some devilment, and just made shit up. Sort of a "knock knock" joke for very clever people, or maybe it was a dare, him and his physicist mates were vying to see who could get people to believe the most unlikely of shit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you could trace the theory and evidence supporting it then it would be easier to evaluate. Remember, don't expect proof, just evidence that supports theories. My point exactly, where's his supporting evidence ffs? Given that we can do things on a microscopic level now, someone surely could have done this in a lab with microns etc... but no, nothing, he's making shit up. I. on the other hand, aint. "Planet has only been around 4,000,0000,000 years, we have only been around for about 65,000 years and science on a molecular level only about 100 years. the discrepancy of 0's makes a lab experiment unlikely. We do however have evidence that elements of high molecular density tend to be found in clusters, indicating they may have moved through lower density elements to collection points. would you accept the theory that 2 liquids of different densities could move through each other? the molecular structure of solid and liquid is the same, just more space between the atoms is all. he could be correct in his theory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you could trace the theory and evidence supporting it then it would be easier to evaluate. Remember, don't expect proof, just evidence that supports theories. My point exactly, where's his supporting evidence ffs? Given that we can do things on a microscopic level now, someone surely could have done this in a lab with microns etc... but no, nothing, he's making shit up. I. on the other hand, aint.
Planet has only been around 4,000,0000,000 years, we have only been around for about 65,000 years and science on a molecular level only about 100 years. the discrepancy of 0's makes a lab experiment unlikely.
We do however have evidence that elements of high molecular density tend to be found in clusters, indicating they may have moved through lower density elements to collection points.
would you accept the theory that 2 liquids of different densities could move through each other? the molecular structure of solid and liquid is the same, just more space between the atoms is all. he could be correct in his theory."I get that denser materials may naturally sink through less dense materials, e.g. rocks through mud, especially when there is vibration.... but what he's saying is that the diamond will pass through the box, and end up outside it... this isn't a nugget of gold moving down through alluvium soil (thousands on small particles) due to vibration of the earth over hundreds or thousands of years... this is a solid object moving through another solid object. He's talking out of his chocolate starfish!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a big fan of science, real fact-based stuff that you can prove, or disprove, experiments, theories etc. But some people just make shit up! Take Professor Brian Cox. He was giving a lecture on TV, and, as a bit of a nerd, I watched it. Loved the way things were going, his own unique way of explaining things etc. Then he just started making shit up. He got a very large, very expensive diamond, and put it in a box, and said, if we come back in a billion years, the diamond would be outside the box, would have "vibrated" its way out, without damaging the box, the vibrations would have lined up the various molecules in the diamond and the box, and as matter is made up of molecules with a lot of space in between, and the diamond would eventually slip through. Fuck off Brian dude, you are just making shit up! Truth is, there is no way of knowing if he is wrong, or right, the timescales are so huge that no-one is ever going to be able to prove, or disprove it.... apart from me. I invented time-travel, went forward a billion years after setting up this experiment, and I can tell you it didn't work. Lets see the fekker disprove that! "I've only just found out,science does not have to be based on fact. Some times they're unbelievably brilliant. Some times,they're just up their own arses wankers. I wouldn't be without them,but I would shoot quite a few.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the diamond turned into Schrödinger's cat
Lets squash this one too, the fekkin cat was dead, it was an ex-cat, it had dropped off the perch... it was deceased! "Why was it? The poision may never have been released. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you could trace the theory and evidence supporting it then it would be easier to evaluate. Remember, don't expect proof, just evidence that supports theories. My point exactly, where's his supporting evidence ffs? Given that we can do things on a microscopic level now, someone surely could have done this in a lab with microns etc... but no, nothing, he's making shit up. I. on the other hand, aint.
Planet has only been around 4,000,0000,000 years, we have only been around for about 65,000 years and science on a molecular level only about 100 years. the discrepancy of 0's makes a lab experiment unlikely.
We do however have evidence that elements of high molecular density tend to be found in clusters, indicating they may have moved through lower density elements to collection points.
would you accept the theory that 2 liquids of different densities could move through each other? the molecular structure of solid and liquid is the same, just more space between the atoms is all. he could be correct in his theory.
I get that denser materials may naturally sink through less dense materials, e.g. rocks through mud, especially when there is vibration.... but what he's saying is that the diamond will pass through the box, and end up outside it... this isn't a nugget of gold moving down through alluvium soil (thousands on small particles) due to vibration of the earth over hundreds or thousands of years... this is a solid object moving through another solid object.
He's talking out of his chocolate starfish!! "In your example ots the other way around. Get a marble or any larger and heavier than a grain of rice object put it in a jar full of rice and shake it around. The heavy object ends up on the top | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy. "Depending on the bulb if it doesnt go out it will break your fridge | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe the diamond turned into Schrödinger's cat
Lets squash this one too, the fekkin cat was dead, it was an ex-cat, it had dropped off the perch... it was deceased!
But was it "How do you know if it was in the box... You can't see it .. So you don't know if it's their or not..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy. " the light goes out?!?!?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy.
the light goes out?!?!?! "but then .. If you put a big diamond in your fridge .. And left it for millions and millions of years .. That would be a waste of a diamond . the yogurt would have evolved and become a scentient being and ate all the bacon . .. And I wouldn't drink the milk either .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy.
the light goes out?!?!?! but then .. If you put a big diamond in your fridge .. And left it for millions and millions of years .. That would be a waste of a diamond . the yogurt would have evolved and become a scentient being and ate all the bacon . .. And I wouldn't drink the milk either .. "the sunny delight would still be OK though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everything in the universe vibrates doesn't it? Even us? " Well anything above absolute zero yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy.
the light goes out?!?!?! but then .. If you put a big diamond in your fridge .. And left it for millions and millions of years .. That would be a waste of a diamond . the yogurt would have evolved and become a scentient being and ate all the bacon . .. And I wouldn't drink the milk either .. "I know, I've seen "The Young Ones!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is the same utter bollocks as religion. Just a load of people believing random stuff that either can't be proved, or is disproved regularly. Nuts. "i just have no words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is the same utter bollocks as religion. Just a load of people believing random stuff that either can't be proved, or is disproved regularly. Nuts. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course it's correct. Learn some quantum theory. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy. "When you close the door the light does not go out. It strobes. And other coloured lights flash. And there is music. And the cheese has a party. Fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You know how they call it theoretical physics?....." You have a point there, perhaps we should ban mathematics as it leads to unprovable probabilities, but on the other hand it does make shopping easier | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just kick the box to hear if the cat is alive ! I can sum it up this way... I have a fridge. The fridge has a light. When I open the door, the light comes on. When I close the door, the light goes off... probably. Does it matter whether or not the light goes out? No. Am I positive the light goes out. No. Do I give a fuck? No. See. Science. Its easy.
Depending on the bulb if it doesnt go out it will break your fridge "Dammit it's not a bulb it's a lamp!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it's entirely legit and based on an accepted quantum physics theory. Heisenberg talked about it, I think. But a chap called Allen Steinhardt explains it in the simplest form I've found, without losing the physicsy part. Brian Cox maybe dumbs stuff down a bit too much. Doesn't explain the quantum theory well enough. It applies to matter on a quantum level and corresponds with widely accepted principles. Go read up on it. Search for sometime like: Quantum physics particles pop in and out of existence. So chill, fams. Apart from having a completely punchable face, Coxy's alright. " "Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it's entirely legit and based on an accepted quantum physics theory." See, this is my point, its all theory.... educated guesswork. And I quite like Brian Cox, I like his enthusiasm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Brian Cox. It's not too difficult to understand entaglement and photons. The Earth IS flat and on the back of a turtle tho ..... There is a diamon shaped vibrator called the 21 if any women out there are interested. " Isnt it on the back of four elephants, who stand on the back of a giant turtle... or is my theory about a similar world to yours, but in a parallel dimension? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's quantum.. The diamond must become quantum as a unit, and the wave function of the quantum diamond must then disperse sufficiently to extend outside the box. At that point the diamond as a whole unit has a probability of jumping outside the box. The first criterion is by far the most difficult, because it can only be achieved by keeping the diamond in total and absolute information isolation from the rest of the universe. That is... unlikely to say the least. If even a single photon or phonon "detects" its location, then from that point forward the diamond is classical in the sense that the photon has pinpointed its location. The second criterion is just abysmally slow. Because even a small diamond has a lot of mass, its wave function disperses very, very slowly. Both of these criteria can be expressed in terms of path integrals, which provide a precise way to quantify the issues I only described conceptually." Oh, so now we have to factor in "jumping" diamonds now, eh? Look, I'm no scientist, but even I know diamonds cant jump.... hmmm, there's a film in that idea somewhere. And, don't get started on, "Well, if the diamond was in a kangaroo's pouch, and the kangarooo jumped, then it could be said that the diamond also jumped".. this kind of hogwash will just not fekkin run mun! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's quantum.. The diamond must become quantum as a unit, and the wave function of the quantum diamond must then disperse sufficiently to extend outside the box. At that point the diamond as a whole unit has a probability of jumping outside the box. The first criterion is by far the most difficult, because it can only be achieved by keeping the diamond in total and absolute information isolation from the rest of the universe. That is... unlikely to say the least. If even a single photon or phonon "detects" its location, then from that point forward the diamond is classical in the sense that the photon has pinpointed its location. The second criterion is just abysmally slow. Because even a small diamond has a lot of mass, its wave function disperses very, very slowly. Both of these criteria can be expressed in terms of path integrals, which provide a precise way to quantify the issues I only described conceptually. Oh, so now we have to factor in "jumping" diamonds now, eh? Look, I'm no scientist, but even I know diamonds cant jump.... hmmm, there's a film in that idea somewhere. And, don't get started on, "Well, if the diamond was in a kangaroo's pouch, and the kangarooo jumped, then it could be said that the diamond also jumped".. this kind of hogwash will just not fekkin run mun! "The term "jump" is used as an object moving through time and space (or any other dimension)... For reference see science fiction "hyper jump"... The key to the theory is Path Integrals - a former of pure math; pure math asks us to postulate solutions to problems that cannot be solved in our physical universe but which can still be solved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it's entirely legit and based on an accepted quantum physics theory. Heisenberg talked about it, I think. But a chap called Allen Steinhardt explains it in the simplest form I've found, without losing the physicsy part. Brian Cox maybe dumbs stuff down a bit too much. Doesn't explain the quantum theory well enough. It applies to matter on a quantum level and corresponds with widely accepted principles. Go read up on it. Search for sometime like: Quantum physics particles pop in and out of existence. So chill, fams. Apart from having a completely punchable face, Coxy's alright. " Haha, I definitely would!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck off Brian dude, you are just making shit up! Truth is, there is no way of knowing if he is wrong, or right, the timescales are so huge that no-one is ever going to be able to prove, or disprove it.... apart from me. I invented time-travel, went forward a billion years after setting up this experiment, and I can tell you it didn't work. Lets see the fekker disprove that! "Your post sounds rather tongue in cheek so this isn't an attack on it, I simply wanted to say, science (as I understand it), begins with the ASSUMPTION (this is important) that reality is real, and therefore subject to a set of laws and rules independent of our own perceptions. To keep things simple, we observe the universe around us and pick out certain patterns in what we can see happening, we then use what we've learned to make predictions about the future. This idea of a diamond vibrating itself outside of a box sounds pretty crazy, but if all the studies around the movements of matter suggest such a thing is possible, then it's possible, regardless of how crazy it may seem. Also remember, whilst many people do actively set out to disprove certain things, this isn't always necessary, as the onus of proof lies with the person making a claim, its not the person who disagrees with it who has the responsibility to prove it wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck off Brian dude, you are just making shit up! Truth is, there is no way of knowing if he is wrong, or right, the timescales are so huge that no-one is ever going to be able to prove, or disprove it.... apart from me. I invented time-travel, went forward a billion years after setting up this experiment, and I can tell you it didn't work. Lets see the fekker disprove that!
Your post sounds rather tongue in cheek so this isn't an attack on it, I simply wanted to say, science (as I understand it), begins with the ASSUMPTION (this is important) that reality is real, and therefore subject to a set of laws and rules independent of our own perceptions. To keep things simple, we observe the universe around us and pick out certain patterns in what we can see happening, we then use what we've learned to make predictions about the future. This idea of a diamond vibrating itself outside of a box sounds pretty crazy, but if all the studies around the movements of matter suggest such a thing is possible, then it's possible, regardless of how crazy it may seem.
Also remember, whilst many people do actively set out to disprove certain things, this isn't always necessary, as the onus of proof lies with the person making a claim, its not the person who disagrees with it who has the responsibility to prove it wrong.""Also remember, whilst many people do actively set out to disprove certain things, this isn't always necessary, as the onus of proof lies with the person making a claim, its not the person who disagrees with it who has the responsibility to prove it wrong." Yay, so, I'm right then!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a big fan of science, real fact-based stuff that you can prove, or disprove, experiments, theories etc. But some people just make shit up! Take Professor Brian Cox. He was giving a lecture on TV, and, as a bit of a nerd, I watched it. Loved the way things were going, his own unique way of explaining things etc. Then he just started making shit up. He got a very large, very expensive diamond, and put it in a box, and said, if we come back in a billion years, the diamond would be outside the box, would have "vibrated" its way out, without damaging the box, the vibrations would have lined up the various molecules in the diamond and the box, and as matter is made up of molecules with a lot of space in between, and the diamond would eventually slip through. Fuck off Brian dude, you are just making shit up! Truth is, there is no way of knowing if he is wrong, or right, the timescales are so huge that no-one is ever going to be able to prove, or disprove it.... apart from me. I invented time-travel, went forward a billion years after setting up this experiment, and I can tell you it didn't work. Lets see the fekker disprove that! "Then why do we have to dig so far into the earth to find diamonds? Why not over the last few billion years have they not vibrated their way to the surface? On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""pure math asks us to postulate solutions to problems that cannot be solved in our physical universe but which can still be solved. " And there, ladybugs and gentlegerms, we have it!!! We live in this physical universe, if a problem cannot be solved, perhaps due to the physical limitations of this universe, then it cannot be solved, no matter how much shit you make up! "I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse. The "physical" universe changes all the time, dpendent on our unstanding of it; which changes...newton created fluxionals from which we now have calculus (and the ability to build something without it falling down or knowing exactly what conditions will make it fall down). Before maths can be "applied" it must be "pure". Newton's (or leibniz's depending who you believe) calculus was at one time "pure" or unprovable; now we can prove it; our knowledge has grown. The best examples of pure math at work are the phone or computer you are using to access fab; the algorithms used are all based on a pure math theory which has been applied. Anyway. It's Sunday. What we didn't know yesterday we may know tomorrow... but what new questions will arise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready.. "Why? I know Slough exists, but have no compulsion to go back... however I have proof that time travel doesn't exist as I never did LSD with Gary Brooker in the 1960s | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. " Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready..
"It could be argued that a time machine has already been invented and proved. We just need better ones. I think it's very possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very interested to read this thread. It reinforces a perception I have about Brian Cox that has been developing recently, in that I have serious doubts as to his academic ability. Most recently, a few weeks ago I heard him explain on BBC Radio Wales (in response to a question asking why the Moon is sometimes a circle and other times is banana shaped) that the phases of the Moon are caused by the shadow of the Earth on its surface..! I was amazed. See, I am in no doubt that he's a brainy fooker, with all the bells and whistles... but on the occasion in question I think he may have spied an opportunity for some devilment, and just made shit up. Sort of a "knock knock" joke for very clever people, or maybe it was a dare, him and his physicist mates were vying to see who could get people to believe the most unlikely of shit. "He is correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. " At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready..
It could be argued that a time machine has already been invented and proved. We just need better ones. I think it's very possible. "It could also be argued that a time machine will never be invented else we would all have one now..... there would be no unknowns from history and a thousand other possible outcomes from that invention. It is more likely that we will learn to travel another "dimension" and not "time" which is a human construct... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons.. as the box is bombarded by photons from the universe, but the diamond is only hit by those that pass through the box... did the diamond move out of the box, or did the box move away from the diamond?" If anything, the additions of cats and pigeons to the process would likely speed the movement of the diamond outside the box - don't include a magpie though otherwise it'll nick it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready..
It could be argued that a time machine has already been invented and proved. We just need better ones. I think it's very possible.
It could also be argued that a time machine will never be invented else we would all have one now..... there would be no unknowns from history and a thousand other possible outcomes from that invention.
It is more likely that we will learn to travel another "dimension" and not "time" which is a human construct..."Good point. If 'time' is a human construct then you have to at least start to question 'dimension'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On a serious note tho i personally dont think a time machine will ever be invented.. if it could then the folks in the future would have made one and come back all ready..
It could be argued that a time machine has already been invented and proved. We just need better ones. I think it's very possible.
It could also be argued that a time machine will never be invented else we would all have one now..... there would be no unknowns from history and a thousand other possible outcomes from that invention.
It is more likely that we will learn to travel another "dimension" and not "time" which is a human construct...
Good point.
If 'time' is a human construct then you have to at least start to question 'dimension'."Why?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Brian Cox. It's not too difficult to understand entaglement and photons. The Earth IS flat and on the back of a turtle tho ..... There is a diamon shaped vibrator called the 21 if any women out there are interested. Isnt it on the back of four elephants, who stand on the back of a giant turtle... or is my theory about a similar world to yours, but in a parallel dimension? "Don't be stupid. What woman would put a diamond vibrator on the back of four elephants? The battery'd run out.. divvy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? " The answer to that is do you trust your senses? What do you know about them and what do you know about how your senses can fail or be tricked, and then you're head id fucked and you realise you know nothing. You don't know anything is real or what reality is except for trusting what you can sense based on you don't know how anything came to be or why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? The answer to that is do you trust your senses? What do you know about them and what do you know about how your senses can fail or be tricked, and then you're head id fucked and you realise you know nothing. You don't know anything is real or what reality is except for trusting what you can sense based on you don't know how anything came to be or why. "Wat??? If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wat??? If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that?? " That pesky sight sense has been unreliable before... I would probably back it up with sense of touch before trampling over you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wat??? If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that?? That pesky sight sense has been unreliable before... I would probably back it up with sense of touch before trampling over you "All jokin aside.. could you see yourself letting someone tell you they wernt infront of you when you can clearly see them or vice versa?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Theoretically he is correct. But like you said, due to the time scale it is impossible to prove nor disprove. That's why it's called theoretical physics " what comment is this relating too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Theoretically he is correct. But like you said, due to the time scale it is impossible to prove nor disprove. That's why it's called theoretical physics what comment is this relating too?" Sorry. Couldn't be bothered to read them all Just replying to the initial post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? The answer to that is do you trust your senses? What do you know about them and what do you know about how your senses can fail or be tricked, and then you're head id fucked and you realise you know nothing. You don't know anything is real or what reality is except for trusting what you can sense based on you don't know how anything came to be or why.
Wat???
If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that?? "If i sense you are there then i might trust my senses. But i also know that hallucinations are real, so idk if you really are there or not and if you put doubt into my head that you might not be then this changes my perception somewhat (it's how liars get away with lies also doing sht like this). I've seen psychosis. Someone i was talking to didn't know if i was really there and talking to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Theoretically he is correct. But like you said, due to the time scale it is impossible to prove nor disprove. That's why it's called theoretical physics what comment is this relating too?ya should read theme.. there some beauts.. but saying 1 solid object could pass through another solid object without damaging it because its vibrating is nuts.. unless proven.. what they are saying is 2 things can occupy the same space..me thinks someone been watchin too many episodes of the flash. Sorry. Couldn't be bothered to read them all Just replying to the initial post" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? The answer to that is do you trust your senses? What do you know about them and what do you know about how your senses can fail or be tricked, and then you're head id fucked and you realise you know nothing. You don't know anything is real or what reality is except for trusting what you can sense based on you don't know how anything came to be or why.
Wat???
If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that??
If i sense you are there then i might trust my senses.
But i also know that hallucinations are real, so idk if you really are there or not and if you put doubt into my head that you might not be then this changes my perception somewhat (it's how liars get away with lies also doing sht like this).
I've seen psychosis. Someone i was talking to didn't know if i was really there and talking to them. "With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. " You can convince people of anything if they're susceptible to the idea and don't know the truth. It's called manipulation. Why do you think most politicians don't answer questions outright? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? The answer to that is do you trust your senses? What do you know about them and what do you know about how your senses can fail or be tricked, and then you're head id fucked and you realise you know nothing. You don't know anything is real or what reality is except for trusting what you can sense based on you don't know how anything came to be or why.
Wat???
If i walk upto you and stand right infront of you.. and you ask me to step aside.. i reply to you that im not actually there thats its impulses in your brain being altered and you are seeing things.. are you going to accept that??
If i sense you are there then i might trust my senses.
But i also know that hallucinations are real, so idk if you really are there or not and if you put doubt into my head that you might not be then this changes my perception somewhat (it's how liars get away with lies also doing sht like this).
I've seen psychosis. Someone i was talking to didn't know if i was really there and talking to them.
With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. "Actually i stand correcting myself.. he actually said "If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was.If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Then thats actually altering the whole thing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. You can convince people of anything if they're susceptible to the idea and don't know the truth. It's called manipulation. Why do you think most politicians don't answer questions outright? " You are going off topic.. if something is infront of you plain and simple.. whether it be me.. a pole.. a car.. or even the phone or computer you typing on now.. is there anyway in the world i can convince you its not infront of you? Without artifically altering your mind.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. You can convince people of anything if they're susceptible to the idea and don't know the truth. It's called manipulation. Why do you think most politicians don't answer questions outright? " As for the truth i could say that religeous groups all over the world been doing that for 1000's of years.. that would put majority of the plantes population being manipulated.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually i stand correcting myself.. he actually said "If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was.If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Then thats actually altering the whole thing.. " I'm just talking about reality in general. But yeah basically you are an organic machine and the above could happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. You can convince people of anything if they're susceptible to the idea and don't know the truth. It's called manipulation. Why do you think most politicians don't answer questions outright? You are going off topic.. if something is infront of you plain and simple.. whether it be me.. a pole.. a car.. or even the phone or computer you typing on now.. is there anyway in the world i can convince you its not infront of you? Without artifically altering your mind.. " right gonna ignore the politician thing, that was just an example of how you can be manipulated by being denied the truth and lied to and isn't a basis for a debate about religion for me coz i don't care. yeah we've gone off topic of the diamond in a box thing but now we're talking about reality, which is related. right look at what's in front of you right now. close your eyes, don't try to touch anything or use any senses to know if it's there or not. is it still there? how do you know it's still there if you have no evidence of that? ok. now if its an inanimate object (we're mobile phone here) it's unlikely it can move on it's own so you can presume it's still there and it would make sense that it's not gone anywhere. that presumption makes sense based off of usual experience. if someone came in and told you it had gone would you believe them without looking? they could have sneakily moved it and you didn't notice, or they might have left it there. you don't know though. so you open your eyes and see *something* is still there. that something looks like your mobile, exactly like it. without touching it is it there? what if it's one of those awesome 3D pics that looks like a real object? and that is how you can fool your own senses. you'd have to pick it up to see what it is but your mate fucked off with your real phone before you did that. now all that's based on sense, proper physical sense. bet you understood that, well that's quantum reality. you can have all sorts of theories that make sense based on what we know, but without observation we don't know if they are true or not, but they make sense so are possible. and brian cox was talking about that with his diamond and box thing in the OP. you're welcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually i stand correcting myself.. he actually said "If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was.If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Then thats actually altering the whole thing.. I'm just talking about reality in general. But yeah basically you are an organic machine and the above could happen." The fact you saying that someone can convince you they are infront of you while they are not.. without artifically altering you is scary.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually i stand correcting myself.. he actually said "If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was.If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Then thats actually altering the whole thing.. I'm just talking about reality in general. But yeah basically you are an organic machine and the above could happen. The fact you saying that someone can convince you they are infront of you while they are not.. without artifically altering you is scary.." it is scary somewhat and is why i have a cynical outlook. but that's ok because with experience you learn how people fool you and you deal with that and you can choose whichever reality you want to have eventually. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With psychosis now you are talking about disorders and mental health issues etc.. thats a different thing.. again with liars is a different thing... we are talking about the fact the chap here said he could make a good argument that he could convince you he was infront of you when infact he was actually somewhere else.. sorry but i gota call bullshit on that one.. You can convince people of anything if they're susceptible to the idea and don't know the truth. It's called manipulation. Why do you think most politicians don't answer questions outright? You are going off topic.. if something is infront of you plain and simple.. whether it be me.. a pole.. a car.. or even the phone or computer you typing on now.. is there anyway in the world i can convince you its not infront of you? Without artifically altering your mind.. right gonna ignore the politician thing, that was just an example of how you can be manipulated by being denied the truth and lied to and isn't a basis for a debate about religion for me coz i don't care. yeah we've gone off topic of the diamond in a box thing but now we're talking about reality, which is related. right look at what's in front of you right now. close your eyes, don't try to touch anything or use any senses to know if it's there or not. is it still there? how do you know it's still there if you have no evidence of that? ok. now if its an inanimate object (we're mobile phone here) it's unlikely it can move on it's own so you can presume it's still there and it would make sense that it's not gone anywhere. that presumption makes sense based off of usual experience. if someone came in and told you it had gone would you believe them without looking? they could have sneakily moved it and you didn't notice, or they might have left it there. you don't know though. so you open your eyes and see *something* is still there. that something looks like your mobile, exactly like it. without touching it is it there? what if it's one of those awesome 3D pics that looks like a real object? and that is how you can fool your own senses. you'd have to pick it up to see what it is but your mate fucked off with your real phone before you did that. now all that's based on sense, proper physical sense. bet you understood that, well that's quantum reality. you can have all sorts of theories that make sense based on what we know, but without observation we don't know if they are true or not, but they make sense so are possible. and brian cox was talking about that with his diamond and box thing in the OP. you're welcome. "Lovely speech.. but thats just changing the dynamics of the situation to suit your argument.much like brian cox and the like. The chap said about convincing you he is there when he somewhere else.. no optical illusion.. not "pick a card put it back in the deck and close your eyes" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually i stand correcting myself.. he actually said "If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was.If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was." Then thats actually altering the whole thing.. I'm just talking about reality in general. But yeah basically you are an organic machine and the above could happen. The fact you saying that someone can convince you they are infront of you while they are not.. without artifically altering you is scary.. it is scary somewhat and is why i have a cynical outlook. but that's ok because with experience you learn how people fool you and you deal with that and you can choose whichever reality you want to have eventually." What?? You can choose whichever reality you want? Are you being serious? And i dont mean to be disrespectful.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone for tea and a discussion on the quantum tunnelling effect of elections across a PN junction? " only if there's cake or biscuits to go with | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lovely speech.. but thats just changing the dynamics of the situation to suit your argument.much like brian cox and the like. The chap said about convincing you he is there when he somewhere else.. no optical illusion.. not "pick a card put it back in the deck and close your eyes" " i'm trying to explain in laymans terms really. if not using your senses than you don't know what's going on outside of them. same for anything else, when you're 'blind' to what's true you don't know what's true. now theoretically that diamond could be outside of the box in billions of years, based on actual physics. experience tells us this isn't likely because we have not found any billion year old diamonds outside of boxes that we knew were in boxes. yet physics tell us it is possible. so which to believe? a physicist would believe cox, or maybe have some other physics that contradicts him and use that to confront him with his evidence. someone without knowledge of physics is blind and cannot see what is possible. yet everyone (including cox), without experience does not know what is true but more what is actually possible. this is the basis of quantum science, and most science experiments. if someone tells me they are stood in front of me and i see them, feel them, sense them. then i will likely trust my senses and think they are there. but i know about hallucinations, mental stimulation and how that can work, also did you see tupacs hologram? i did and know about those, you can touch holograms now also. so maybe that 'thing/person' in front of me is something else? it's possible. so based on all knowledge you have to date you can make your own assumptions based on those. and from experience you can start making your own facts. i won't even get started on what is reality haha. but i can if i have to (i really don't want to). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What?? You can choose whichever reality you want? Are you being serious? And i dont mean to be disrespectful.. " Yes, you can based on factual information. i don't feel disrespected, i love that you're asking me stuff coz i don't feel i explain well without being questioned. you might be over complicating things, or i am by explaining (i think it's me). but put simply, if you have facts you can make reality choices based on those facts. with lies you cannot. the freedom to choose your own reality is amazing. if someone lies to you and you decide to believe those lies then you are choosing a false reality. but with truth and facts you are free to decide what to do with that information and form your own reality. this is why people have prejudices and debate using opinions and not facts, they believe in lies without knowing what's true. i think it's why we seek out what is real so that we can base our life on that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, we're talking about a box that we believe to be solid, and a diamond that is also believed to be solid, and a timescale of a million years. Firstly, solid is relative, if I punch a drain cover it will break the bones in my hand, therefore painfully proving that the solid object that Is My fist cannot pas through that solid object, but the solid object that is my car keys, can pas easily through, now I know you are going to say that the keys are passing through a gap and therefore not passing through a solid object at all, but if you think about the drain and the keys as the diamond and the box, but on a molecular level, I have no background in science, this is just my theory" The key going through the drain..is the same as a bullet going through a body.. if you record the event and play it back slowly.. is the key/bullet going through the actual drain/body or is it just rupturing the object and causing a "hole" and just passing through the hole? If you got a freez frame image of the diamond passing through the box and and shaved off layer by layer of the diamond to the exact layer that the diamond and box are at the exact joining layer.. now will there be part of the box inside the diamond? If no then where is that part of the box? If yes then logically the box is splitting the diamond in half so the diamond should be in 2 pieces? If i get a loaf of bread "box" put a knife through it "diamond" whats going to happen the bread?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? " The tools you choose to measure or interpret your perceived 'reality' are your senses. Your senses are (to the best of our current knowledge) nothing more than electrical signals relayed to the brain. That is your reality, electrical impulses. Imagine for a moment what you would perceive as reality if you could not see, feel, hear, smell or taste?...and had never been able to. Once you accept that your reality is just how your brain has interpreted electricity, then it's not difficult to appreciate that different brains may interpret similar electrical signals in completely different ways. You and I may both believe the colour red we see is the same, but our brains may just be interpreting things differently. My red may be your black, we'd never know. So when you ask a question such as 'who is right?', I think you're missing the point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Science is based on belief. Quantum theory excites because it shakes our perception of the physical. For me, that is the key phrase 'our perception'. I could make a convincing argument that the box and diamond don't exist in the first place. Thats like trying to convince us that YOU dont exist while you are standing infront of us. But now i took the bait.. go ahead morphious show us that they dont exist.. At its most basic quantum shows us that it's the act of measurement that locks in what we perceive. We rely on these measuring tools which ultimately define our universe. Have you considered questioning the validity of those actual tools? How would you know if I were standing directly in front of you? Your brain can't see me. It is reacting to electrical impulses you have been taught comes from your eyes. If the same electric impulses could be artificially stimulated in your brain, then you'd be convinced that I was stood in front of you no matter where I actually was. Ok.. so by your logic... if im standing infront of you.. you say im there and i say "nope" im not here im somewhere else..you are just imagining im here... who is right? The tools you choose to measure or interpret your perceived 'reality' are your senses. Your senses are (to the best of our current knowledge) nothing more than electrical signals relayed to the brain. That is your reality, electrical impulses. Imagine for a moment what you would perceive as reality if you could not see, feel, hear, smell or taste?...and had never been able to. Once you accept that your reality is just how your brain has interpreted electricity, then it's not difficult to appreciate that different brains may interpret similar electrical signals in completely different ways. You and I may both believe the colour red we see is the same, but our brains may just be interpreting things differently. My red may be your black, we'd never know. So when you ask a question such as 'who is right?', I think you're missing the point. " We are not talking colours here..im you're standing in front of me can you convince me you're not? And vice versa can you convince me you are if you are infact not?? You are changing to many constants to suit your argument.. i DO have mh sight..my hearing..touch..smell and taste.. given thise conditions that apply to me.. how can you convince me you're infront of me when you are elsewhere. This is your words not mine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok, we're talking about a box that we believe to be solid, and a diamond that is also believed to be solid, and a timescale of a million years. Firstly, solid is relative, if I punch a drain cover it will break the bones in my hand, therefore painfully proving that the solid object that Is My fist cannot pas through that solid object, but the solid object that is my car keys, can pas easily through, now I know you are going to say that the keys are passing through a gap and therefore not passing through a solid object at all, but if you think about the drain and the keys as the diamond and the box, but on a molecular level, I have no background in science, this is just my theory The key going through the drain..is the same as a bullet going through a body.. if you record the event and play it back slowly.. is the key/bullet going through the actual drain/body or is it just rupturing the object and causing a "hole" and just passing through the hole? If you got a freez frame image of the diamond passing through the box and and shaved off layer by layer of the diamond to the exact layer that the diamond and box are at the exact joining layer.. now will there be part of the box inside the diamond? If no then where is that part of the box? If yes then logically the box is splitting the diamond in half so the diamond should be in 2 pieces? If i get a loaf of bread "box" put a knife through it "diamond" whats going to happen the bread??" More like if you get some cream cheese, and put it through a strainer, that's if you subscribe to the theory that everything is a liquid, I know what I want to say but I'm having a hard time getting it right in my head. I think what I'm trying to say is that we are viewing the problem with the element of time missing, and we're looking at it like we're leaving it in a box overnight | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We are not talking colours here..im you're standing in front of me can you convince me you're not? And vice versa can you convince me you are if you are infact not?? You are changing to many constants to suit your argument.. i DO have mh sight..my hearing..touch..smell and taste.. given thise conditions that apply to me.. how can you convince me you're infront of me when you are elsewhere. This is your words not mine" I'm not trying to change anything fella, i'm just asking you to question for a moment what you base your 'reality' on. Do you accept that to the best of our knowledge, your 'physical reality' is based completely on your brains interpretation of electrical impulses? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We are not talking colours here..im you're standing in front of me can you convince me you're not? And vice versa can you convince me you are if you are infact not?? You are changing to many constants to suit your argument.. i DO have mh sight..my hearing..touch..smell and taste.. given thise conditions that apply to me.. how can you convince me you're infront of me when you are elsewhere. This is your words not mine I'm not trying to change anything fella, i'm just asking you to question for a moment what you base your 'reality' on. Do you accept that to the best of our knowledge, your 'physical reality' is based completely on your brains interpretation of electrical impulses? " I know that everything i touched today was physically there. I know that seen as i have not left my apartment today that everything i seen is real. I know that unless someone enters my apartment tonight that everything i left will still be in the same place in the morning.. now you may say that over night is only a few hours.. but in relation to the age of the universe 1 billion years is still just a few hours with the diamond and the box.. i just hope the eggs dont move out of their box.. i dont wana be cleaning them up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
What a weird-ass discussion. There was some science along with an extra-large dollop of mumbo-jumbo.
As you were. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 ... and sorry Steven but your version of how it all started wasn't worth the effort either (well some had to tell the truth ffs) ...
LOLs still not convinced on the T rex either, Massive body, legs, head and a bite that could crush steel but only weeny little front legs, they didn't find all the bits n blagged it... 
xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone can base something on a theory and make it sound plausible ... and sorry Steven but your version of how it all started wasn't worth the effort either (well some had to tell the truth ffs) ...
LOLs still not convinced on the T rex either, Massive body, legs, head and a bite that could crush steel but only weeny little front legs, they didn't find all the bits n blagged it...
xx"Pretty sure the T Rex, never crushed any steel with their jaws, steel is manufactured and shouldn't exist in the wild
What I don't get is if opposable thumbs are so usful how come they are so rare? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So say you came back in half a billion years, would the diamond be halfway through the side of the box? What would that look like and how could it do that without damaging the box? "Ok I confess, I already nicked the diamond but you aren't supposed to know for 1,000,000,000 years, to give me time to escape. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone can base something on a theory and make it sound plausible ... and sorry Steven but your version of how it all started wasn't worth the effort either (well some had to tell the truth ffs) ...
LOLs still not convinced on the T rex either, Massive body, legs, head and a bite that could crush steel but only weeny little front legs, they didn't find all the bits n blagged it...
xx
Pretty sure the T Rex, never crushed any steel with their jaws, steel is manufactured and shouldn't exist in the wild
What I don't get is if opposable thumbs are so usful how come they are so rare? "It did in that documentary Jurassic Park
xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you want to read..but pay attention to the part where it says that the diamond has to be in a vacume and "isolated from the rest of the universe" http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30172/feynmans-diamond-jumping-out-of-a-box-parody-how-would-this-work" i'm gonna watch fenyman tomorrow if i get time.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A T-rex caught in a vortex, helplessly flailing its tiny arms? "Careful, need to be PolCo about the arms bit, saying that to Ross could be as bad as the (bareback) word to a swinger... xx
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course it's correct. Learn some quantum theory. " Did the quantum theory guys phone in sick,all the times they got it wrong. The list of scientific wrongs,is to big a list,to list. But by fuck,that's one big list. Somedays you would think they just used a big guessometer,that was broke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So say you came back in half a billion years, would the diamond be halfway through the side of the box? What would that look like and how could it do that without damaging the box? "Well they are sayin in 1 billion years it will pass completely through the box and end up on the outside of it without damaging the box.. i just asked of the state it would be in half way through the "move" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you could trace the theory and evidence supporting it then it would be easier to evaluate. Remember, don't expect proof, just evidence that supports theories. My point exactly, where's his supporting evidence ffs? Given that we can do things on a microscopic level now, someone surely could have done this in a lab with microns etc... but no, nothing, he's making shit up. I. on the other hand, aint.
Planet has only been around 4,000,0000,000 years, we have only been around for about 65,000 years and science on a molecular level only about 100 years. the discrepancy of 0's makes a lab experiment unlikely.
We do however have evidence that elements of high molecular density tend to be found in clusters, indicating they may have moved through lower density elements to collection points.
would you accept the theory that 2 liquids of different densities could move through each other? the molecular structure of solid and liquid is the same, just more space between the atoms is all. he could be correct in his theory.
I get that denser materials may naturally sink through less dense materials, e.g. rocks through mud, especially when there is vibration.... but what he's saying is that the diamond will pass through the box, and end up outside it... this isn't a nugget of gold moving down through alluvium soil (thousands on small particles) due to vibration of the earth over hundreds or thousands of years... this is a solid object moving through another solid object.
He's talking out of his chocolate starfish!!
In your example ots the other way around.
Get a marble or any larger and heavier than a grain of rice object put it in a jar full of rice and shake it around.
The heavy object ends up on the top"Yes but the rice is moving "around" the other object and the object is not passing jar.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's quantum.. The diamond must become quantum as a unit, and the wave function of the quantum diamond must then disperse sufficiently to extend outside the box. At that point the diamond as a whole unit has a probability of jumping outside the box. The first criterion is by far the most difficult, because it can only be achieved by keeping the diamond in total and absolute information isolation from the rest of the universe. That is... unlikely to say the least. If even a single photon or phonon "detects" its location, then from that point forward the diamond is classical in the sense that the photon has pinpointed its location. The second criterion is just abysmally slow. Because even a small diamond has a lot of mass, its wave function disperses very, very slowly. Both of these criteria can be expressed in terms of path integrals, which provide a precise way to quantify the issues I only described conceptually." Ya type this out yourself or just copy and paste? It would have been better to paste the complete URL so people can read the whole thing and not just the bit you selected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I literally just talked myself out of a threesome by getting involved in a sicentific argument with one of the girls for so long that the other went to bed. I'm pretty sure my teenage self will cadtrate me for this if time travel is invented " Well no disrespect mate.. but its a fact that you're a fuckin eejit at times lol... bet ya wont do that again..FACT | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with quantum theory, is, its all theory. Give me some quantum facts. Otherwise I will just give you a matrix theory, the diamond does not exist in the box because the matrix does not waste ram and graphics processing stuff we can't see. Sure a glitch in the matrix might make the diamond jump outside the box, but thats got nothing to do with quantum theory. Its just coincidence. Just saying." . Gravity is a theory!. I don't need gravity facts to hold me from floating away because the gravity theory works pretty well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gravity is a theory!. I don't need gravity facts to hold me from floating away because the gravity theory works pretty well" Firstly, Gravity theory has a fair few problems that need to be fixed. Secondly, It does not work like that. A force holds us onto the planet, we observed the world and came up with a reason for why this happens and it is called a theory because it can not be proven for 100% sure. It's very probable that its true but other theories can not be discounted. Lastly and back on topic. The diamond to pass through a box is not possible. There are a bunch of problems with that theory. Firstly the diamond needs to be unobservable by the universe. If even one atom is observed that atom must immediately obey all our laws. And that atom could then observe the others in the diamond. Its like when you close a box, the box does not become 1 atom thick because you cant see the walls of the box. The atoms are all interacting with each other so the box remains having 2 inch thick walls. When the diamond moves inside the box, which is possible, it will eventually become observable as soon as it hits the inside wall of the box, it will then obey all our laws and just fall to the bottom of the box. Even if 1 atom could make it through the wall of the box, it would then be directly observable, not just to the atoms in the box, but to us humans, and then that one single atom would be observed and the diamond would get stuck in the box wall. In reality what would happen is, You would set up a box completely isolated from the universe. You would set up powerful magnets to hold the diamond in place floating or something. In a million/billion years, youd open the box, and find the diamond on the floor of the box, despite the experiment working properly and never failing and having the ability to hold the diamond in place hovering. The inside edge of the box is the universe, as soon as anything makes contact with it, the universe observes it and therefore the diamond can under no theory pass through the box unless it is transported. Unless people are saying the diamond can transport itself out of the box. Like a teleport. Not move through the box but completely remove itself from the universe and reappear outside the box. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a big fan of science, real fact-based stuff that you can prove, or disprove, experiments, theories etc. But some people just make shit up! Take Professor Brian Cox. He was giving a lecture on TV, and, as a bit of a nerd, I watched it. Loved the way things were going, his own unique way of explaining things etc. Then he just started making shit up. He got a very large, very expensive diamond, and put it in a box, and said, if we come back in a billion years, the diamond would be outside the box, would have "vibrated" its way out, without damaging the box, the vibrations would have lined up the various molecules in the diamond and the box, and as matter is made up of molecules with a lot of space in between, and the diamond would eventually slip through. Fuck off Brian dude, you are just making shit up! Truth is, there is no way of knowing if he is wrong, or right, the timescales are so huge that no-one is ever going to be able to prove, or disprove it.... apart from me. I invented time-travel, went forward a billion years after setting up this experiment, and I can tell you it didn't work. Lets see the fekker disprove that! "Oh dear I'm so terribly sorry.
I heard you coming to visit and I thought I should tidy up a bit, so I put the diamond back in the box.
I really am so terribly sorry to have messed up your experiment.
Could you find it in your heart to forgive me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
