Itoero

Gangnam style more then 3 billion views on YouTube Pavarotti "nessun dorma" Helene Bøksle - The Dreaming "Ere the World crumbles"

Ah ok, I'll change the water. I thought of changing the water after a week.

The avocado's are rotting. I put cinnamon on them, it has an antiseptic working.

I was correct, read this theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem. The fact that scattering causes refraction should be common sense for physicists. Your make your own 'science', based on logical interpretations and faith. Most people don't know this. The no-hair theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem is not scientiffically proven. A better name would be: no-hair hypothesis. Yet it's the no-hair theorem that led to the Black hole info paradox...which led to many more theories. So? Mathematical modals have to be scientifically proven else it's not 'science'. The wrong interpretation of refraction (thread Energy photon)is based on faith. The holographic principle can be 'proven'. It's not a wild idea of a crazy scientist. A quote of Sherlock Holms explains how you should interpret the holographic principle and how it was formed. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp59b8/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html The idea that entanglement builds space is based on the holographic principle. The quantum gravity model of Hiroshi Ooguri is based on the holographic principle. That's just an opinion, it's not defined what philosophy is. And it's not as straightforward as you think. Metaphysics is categorized under philosophy. And cosmology is a branch of metaphysics.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_art

Oeps yes, it should be 'germinating'. I'm not growing one for harvest...But there are trees that remain smaller and produce avocado in a couple years.

Are there people that grow avocado trees? With harvest? Here in Belgium it's to cold in the winter but I'm emerging some seeds and I'm going to grow them outside in summer and inside in winter. I'm using the toothpick method.

With science being a subfield I point to the 'fact' that philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science is subject to the scientific method. Philosophy is not subject to anything. But which aspects of science are not adressed in Philosophy? In the thread "energy photon". I stated that scattering of photons causes refraction. Everyone seemed to disagree with it. People had their own idea of what is 'science', which was based on a logical interpretation and not on scientific evidence. Many people seem to put scientific value on Einstein's ideas concerning the inside of black Holes because calculations concerning the behavior of black holes are correct. This is again based on logic....their is zero scientific evidence for what happens after an event horizon. If there was evidence then it wouldn't be an event horizon. Everything about string theory, holographic principle and soft hair theory (of stephen hawking) are not based on scientific evidence. So how do you call those things? Its not science (yet). Considering science to be a subfield of philosophy imo explains things.

What do you think of this statement? Many things in what people consider mainstream science are logic ideas not based on scientific evidence. Something that concerns science but is not based on scientific evidence is imo philosophy and not (yet)science.

? Yes and the food they need is energy. But is their sufficiently raw material and energy to robotize our commercial world?

There is always the question if there is sufficient energy and raw material to robotize the 'commercial world'...robots need food.

This is an odd statement. You can't 'beat' evolution( change over time ). Beating 'evolution' is like beating 'time'.

This will come as a surprise to most people but God does exist. A while ago he got sick of being God and he made me God. So I'm God.

I never said that. But if you think like that, it's rather 5 dimensions instead of 2.

If it's encoded on a two dimensional surface then that doesn't change the observable dimensions we live in. And it's not a 4 or 5 dimensional space since the holographic dimensions are not space....they create space.

No, you are again completely wrong. If the holographic principle is correct then that doesn't change the three-dimensional space we live in which is a geometric setting in which three values (called parameters) are required to determine the position of a point. By proving the holographic principle you don't reduce the amount of coordinates needed to specify any point within the space.

No. The ER=EPR is a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge) It''s proposed by Leonard Susskind in 2013,, a proponent of the holographic principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

The ER EPR is based on the holographic principle. But it's not literally said. The holographic principle is a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn. The ER=EPR conjecture was proposed by Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena in 2013. Why do you say that? The H principle doesn't remove or delete things, the principle explains things, it gives extra information. Yes but dimreepr seems to think he knows.

No it doesn't but the ER EPR is based on the hologr

you're missing the point, they aren't connected So ER=EPR is wrong? I give neg rep because you deny the work of several of the 'best' physicists of this time and your example doesn't make any sense. You do know that more then two particles can get entangled?

The last time you said that, a theorem backed me up. This happened very often on this forum. People always say I'm wrong yet I'm very often backed up by science. I'm talking against faith-based beliefs...believe what you want.

That's what the holographic principle provides. It states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region. In my oversimplified explanation...two entangled particles are connected by 2D info. 2D info implies the absence of time and space. There is no space between entangled particles which allows the seemingly instantaneous collapse.

"Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." There is no evidence for this, it's the idea from a smart man a long time ago. If you knew more about how physicists like Hawking and Susskind investigate this and what the current idea's are, then you would know the idea that "Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." is probably wrong. GR doesn't give the absolute truth... That's not true...science evolves you know, things change. Not everything in GR is correct. Hawking has the soft hair theory. And the holographic principle was invented by G t Hooft and it was given a stringy look by Susskind. Those are ways to deal with the black hole info paradox. The stuff the GR says about BH has not much value anymore. It states the universe is a hologram. Black hole event horizons are then boundaries which separate our observable 3D world from 2D info. Time and space are not present in 2D info...you shouldn't apply GR-logic to understand BHs.

Ok but between entangled particles the act of measuring or observing is transferred. It's spooky reaction at distance.

Yes it is. It allows us to see. Nuclear reactions in the sun form light and our photoreceptorcells absorb the photons. The most simple example is that an electron can absorb and release a photon.