Leaderboard

Dude... are you smoking the same weed as me... sweet... bloody good trip... my brother... hang on... did I just say that That's the internal dialog, here's the replies should it be an external dialog: Dude... Dude... Dude... DDDDUUUUDDDEEE... no, wait... what were we talking about

Except it's not "the contrary view". I don't even have to claim natural skepticism. You obviously have a difficult time explaining what you mean, but what does come through seems to have little evidential support beyond your assertions and incredulity. I don't need "the contrary view" to see you aren't meeting the kind of criteria needed to advance a scientific idea. Assuming we're all just being naysayers doesn't help you support your position, it just makes you keep mentioning it unnecessarily. Your reasoning is what is being attacked here, and those who are have explained why and where the problems lie. That's not a contrary, kneejerk response. "We folks" aren't going to fall for you playing the "you're so hidebound" card. Please respond to the criticism, and not the critics.

Jack, what initially spiked your attention about the possiblity of a simulated universe in the first place? I mean, you obviously pondered the idea for a minute in order to have come to the conclusion you have.

Can you explain that "consequently" as I don't see the connection. That is not a theory of anything. It doesn't allow you to predict or calculate anything. It is just a pointless statement of a mathematical truth. You could equally usefully say that 5 = 5, or 4 <> 3.

The evidence is overwhelming and concrete thus far that stars are simply distant Suns at various stages of their life and of various sizes, and your usual baseless doubts on this scientific issue among the many others you have, actually mean nothing. http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html

Yeah mate, I just continually refuse to understand that 1=0. I'm a philistine really. Hey man, if you are trolling that's cool and you got me. But if you seriously don't understand that what you are saying is wrong and not even from a physics perspective but from a kindergarten maths class level, where you keep saying Zero universe and then saying it's value is 1, then this is the day I realise that ego an ignorance are a more potent poison than cyanide sugar and those hot dogs that they sell in gas stations - combined.

On my planer I remove the blades with an allen key, then I clamp them with sheet metal pliers and sharpen on a whetstone first. (relatively new as they develop unevenness over time. For the honing I use the adhesive sheets and glass. In essence its the same aa a chisel though I follow the angle they come in. The main trick is clamping the blade with sheet metal pliers. Unfortunately you can't do too often as the more modern planers have disposable blades but you can extend their lifetime a bit. Many ppl use belt sanders but I prefer doing by hand but this vid shows the procedure https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DWx0shUhRguc&ved=0ahUKEwjKrpP5r8_aAhUE32MKHXktAMcQtwIIMzAE&usg=AOvVaw0RvM48V2lNXzUk4yCjcPHD The end of the vid shows the limit signs to the amount of sharpening.

One of my favourite purchases is my electric handplaner. I do a lot of smaller work with pallet wood and its a huge time saver though tend to have to sharpen the blades often lol.

Just to make sure, it was not supposed to be a criticism, When one starts off learning something completely new, everything may seem new and weird. But usually it takes some deeper knowledge to figure out what differences are relevant and which are superficial. My comment on immersion was aimed at a priori assumptions about interpretation of cultural norms without actually understanding them. There are concepts that I feel are overrated or misunderstood (the concept of "face" for example). It does not mean that it is wrong to be sensitive (especially at the beginning). Rather, what I meant is that one should not come with strong preconceptions and use those instead of what the interaction with the folks actually tells you ("no I am pretty sure that you are offended by this, I read it in a book"), if that makes sense. As a silly example, I remember from my time in Poland ,that it was impressed upon us that stirring ones teacup loudly was offensive and we have to take great care not to do that (without further explanation). Only to find out that no one really cared about it unless you are kind of obnoxiously playing around with it. Edit: the context of the interactions are also relevant of course. Meeting someone's parents-in-law in a different country would require a different approach than interacting with co-workers or student, for example...

! Moderator Note Unfortunately for those in the philosocopter, the clouds cleared to show a looming mountainside. No amount of hands on the collective could pull up in time. BOOM.

Why? You make it sound like they have only ever made one!

A clock is anything used to measure time... I would say.

Is a sundial a type of clock? It's probably orders of magnitude worse at telling time than state-of-the-art devices than the Chinese device compared to a modern-day compass. You have made zero justification for your position.

Well, I for one just said it was. It is a novel application of materials and objects to take advantage of an observation with scientific overtones. That seems, to me, a fair defintion of an invention.(And as long as it is in quotation marks I'd say I was a "scholar". :))

I would say no. Consciousness behaves like an emergent property of many different variables.

Yes, this was corrected by swansont above. Is it a site for kids? My bad...Im sure it doesn’t make it wrong though. Ok, so you mean that in order to detect light or make it visible it is required for light to act with matter? That is correct but a very different issue from „I am just wondering whether light in general could not be a local phenomenon created by the collision of em waves and matter” which is nonsense.

Maxwell's Treatise on electricity never mentions light as anything else but an electrical effect. I think the assumption that light is not an em wave would not change anything to his equations. But please, remember, it is pure speculation. It is therefore more science fiction than science. I just wonder whether the assumption that light itself is an em wave is really necessary, and what it would mean for Physics if we assumed it is not. I think that it would make at least a very interesting intellectual exercise. Certainly not worth a Nobel Prize, but even if proven wrong, it would at least show which position this assumption takes in Physics and what the consequences are of denying its validity. I purposefully did not place this thread in a scientific sub-forum to avoid the accusation of propagating pseudo-science.

As already mentioned, the blue sky on the Earth is due to Rayleigh scattering. Mars' atmosphere is so thin that this is normally not a significant factor. The yellow brown of the sky is most likely caused by small dust particles in the atmosphere. On Mars you only see blue in the sky when the sun is near the horizon, and then only as a halo surrounding the sun. Just like on Earth, when the sun is near the horizon we see a greater amount of Rayleigh scattering making the sunset or sunrise orange or red, on Mars it can increase it enough to produce a region of blue sky.

I’m not. Why are you being so sensitive.

Though I will happily talk with myself through the medium of written English. This is known as a mind dump. Anyway, my opinion on the language of mathematics is this: it is multilayered, i.e. a latin/greek/etc character encodes some logic, then another character encodes logic on that logic, etc. So it is seen as efficient, yet implicit. So maths seems superficially to be a good candidate for encode rich logic. However, there is one major risk I can see associated with this, compared with textual logic: the layer-upon-layer-upon-layer logical structure can lead to confusion over the exact initial meaning of the base layer, akin to the old English game called 'Chinese whispers' -- though I am not sure of the origin of that name. We can also analyse maths through propagation of error that I will do in words, not maths, so as to not be circular in my reasoning. If there is a small error in encoding or decoding of knowledge on one layer, and then that knowledge is used to encode the next layer, potentially with its own associated error, and then decoded, maybe with further error, then the error magnifies to the point of distorting the intended meaning of the logic. Another second issue that can occur, and does occur for example when one provides a proper noun to one layer of knowledge, e.g. Einsteinian, is that one may forget some or all of the limitations of such a theory and apply it more generally than it should be or was originally intended to be. Again, such super-generalisation of knowledge magnifies with layers such that such use of said knowledge is close to meaningless on a logical level. There are obviously other reasons to be VERY careful when encoding and decoding logic and understanding in mathematics, else it becomes something taken on FAITH not COMPREHENSION. I do not state or imply here that there are issues with faith per se, but I state that maths is suggested and intended to be comprehension-based not faith-based and to take any encoded logic on faith is to do a disservice to the very meaning of SCIENCE. By writing this reply I will state that Strange's reply is not worthy of any further reply.

I find sometimes people seem to see things in black or white whereas the truth is a murky grey area in between. This seems to be a case in point.

"Thoughts please? A theory of everything is necessarily a theory of nothing" For the theory of everything you can not avoid the theory/hypotheses of Nothing. Nothing had been(lowest possible physical state) and nothing never can be again, ever since anything exist. How does your theory handle the sense of Nothing-0? What is the written expression of nothing? How would you prove mathematically the consistency natural numbers has, if you know the definition of 0? I will try to show some functions of Nothing(0) what I recognized it has: 0+0=0,0 0*0=0,0 0-0=0,0 0/0=0,0 Can I say 0 is a Natural number?