Royston

Err, meh, forget about it...I realise this thread was a bit tongue in cheek, but I 'did' want to discuss the ideas around everything being thought 'and' no thought, as an undivided process. Nevermind. Please delete this thread, thanks.

Well the title of the thread is rather misleading, but I feel like churning out some pseudotwoddle just because A. I hanv't churned out any pseudotwoddle for a while and B. I feel like it. I'm going to use an example from a book by David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order), where he uses Aristolean logic and then extends on the idea by combining two attributes i.e thought [math]T[/math] and no thought [math]NT[/math]. I will then erroneously tie it with the consistent histories theory, which to be perfectly honest I don't really understand, but I've got a hunch of what it entails. So thought, doesn't require any explanation, No thought would be anything outside of thought, so the physical system in which we reside. So with Aristolean logic we have... Everything is either [math]T[/math] or [math]NT[/math] So everything is just a figment of our imagination, or everything is just a physical system. Everything is neither [math]T[/math] or [math]NT[/math] So there is some hidden system which cannot be explained by either thought or by observing or measuring our environment. Everything is both [math]T[/math] and [math]NT[/math] This is what I want to discuss, now if everything is thought 'and' no thought, then the two are interdependant (mutually dependent.) So if you think about the implications, then as an ongoing process our environment shapes thought and vice versa. So this would mean that as we progress our universe progresses i.e quantum systems never existed until we started formulating quantum systems. The universe was purely classical before relativity et.c Of course what was there before thought, wouldn't make any sense, so unless we ask the right question it could be any infinitely possible histories. Another way to look at it is, thought is an emergent process as well as no-thought. So the universe actually becomes more complex, the more thought develops. So thought was very basic in the early universe and gradually become more complex until it became self aware et.c I can only think everything is just no-thought, and the environment just shapes our thoughts, and thought is dependant on the physical system in which it observes, this is all fine, but how can you have purely no-thought ? So if anyone wants to add, or pick holes, whatever you wish, feel free. Please don't go off on a tangent with your own theory, like some other threads have, stick to the content and premises of this thread.

Errr, it would just change the value of energy in respect to the sum of mass and the speed of light, it has nothing to do with dimensions, you're just changing the value of the exponent.

I thought you were a millionaire The reason I asked about two entities sharing the same reference frame, is that everything we experience is actually in the past, as it takes photons [math]x[/math] amount of time to reach our eyes. Now if something collides and becomes one (which is the only way anything can share the same reference frame) then the only way it can measure it's time with respect to something else...is another reference frame. So how can you have an 'absolute' time, when there is nothing to measure your position against something else i.e an entity can only measure it's position with regards to something else, which is always in motion anyway. I thought this was basic relativity, or am I missing something. Farsight, you seem to be saying that the geometry of space-time has a fixed background, which is just plain wrong IMO. I've had a couple of glasses of vino, so apologies if this isn't quite right.

One question, how can anything possibly 'share' the same reference frame.

I guess there's not many people on here who grew up with Knight Rider, and watched how David reached the dizzy heights of kitch value, as he became a success in Europe for his god awful music, and then continued with the series Baywatch. Kit. 'my sensors detect a non-appreciation of Hoff paraphernalia Michael' Michael. 'they will kit...they will' <presses turbo boost button.> We have 4000 people and 8 floors where I work, a fine target for the Hoff Bomb.

I have the same problem, so didn't bother...the only thing written on my myspace page is 'I've increased the bit rate of my music, because it sounded rubbish' still sounds poor, but I really need a better mastering package for converting from wav, there seems to be a huge loss of quality, and then even more so when played through those dodgy myspace audio players...which 9 times out of ten won't even play. GAH, myspace really has a lot to answer for. I guess you can't expect much from a free web page (using the term loosely.)

On a particularly dull afternoon, I decided to add a few friends (something I've only done once, I hasten to add) to my myspace page, so me and a friend thought of some of the most unlikely and conflicting people to add...so although I'm still waiting on a few I've added, Dolly Parton, Slayer, Mr T, He-Man, Stephen Hawking, Ziyi Zhang and a few others I can't remember. Obviously it's very unlikely that it's the real Mr T or Dolly Parton, but it was amusing at the time. And I'd rather prise my kneecaps off with a claw hammer, than listen to country and western music...before anyone asks.

Well, this is what I thought...D_H threw me a little, and I can't see how his examples have anything to do with energy and mass being interchangeable, or the 'same thing' as you put it. Like you said, they're indirectly proportional, that's a very basic rule, I just thought I'd missed something.

[math]y = x^2 - 4x + 3[/math] [math](y + \Delta y) = (x + \Delta x)^2 - 4(x + \Delta x) + 3[/math] [math]y + \Delta y = x^2 + 2x \Delta x + (\Delta x)^2 - 4x - 4\Delta x + 3[/math] [math]y + \Delta y = (x^2 - 4x + 3) + 2x\Delta x - 4\Delta x + (\Delta x)^2[/math] [math]\Delta y = 2x \Delta x - 4\Delta x + (\Delta x)^2[/math] [math]\frac {\Delta y}{\Delta x} = 2x - 4 + \Delta x[/math] [math]\frac {dy}{dx} = 2x - 4[/math] Just practicing differentiation... [math]X^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac {(O_i - E_i)^2}{E_i}[/math] a simple [math]X^2[/math] test equation. Just some of my current course content, need to get to grips with Latex, before I start asking any math related questions.

Right, I was thinking of a certain epoch of the early universe, but it's speculative...so my bad. And yes [math]\frac{hc}{\lambda} = E_p[/math]. Where [math]\lambda[/math] and [math]E_p[/math] are directly proportional. I know that wasn't necessary, I just really need to start using Latex.

Well, energy and mass are interchangeable...so a 'thing' as you call it, requires lots of energy. That's just semantics, I'm colour blind, so if I say the bus is green, or the bus isn't a bus (if I interpreted the bus as something different), then your argument is flawed. Why not, all I have to do is say, that isn't red. Then you take this massive leap as to what we perceive, is what constitutes energy...how, you can't mix physical principles with subjectivity. Work is being done in this field, but by judging your arguments, this is a far cry from the logic (or lack of) that you've described. Energy is not a semantic term with regards to physics, and all you seem to be doing is making rather loose analogies around a theme, which amounts to what exactly ?

Care to elaborate on this statement. You've used money as an analogy for energy...in that I work, I gain money, and then spend this money on items that have required work from other individuals, and value (although this becomes erroneous) is due to how much work I put in. This doesn't explain energy, it's just an analogy for the exchange of energy...and unfortunately your example, and energy, are incomparable anyway.

I'm certainly not denying that, I just feel it's not solely lots of hard work, and not solely being naturally able in a certain field of study. I guess 'gifted' is the wrong term to use, although there are 'gifted' people out there. If people didn't have a natural ability in certain subjects, then their particular skills wouldn't be recognised...you don't have to be a child prodigy to demonstrate that you find one subject easier over another. A natural flare is discovered in children, it's not taught before hand. I would say Stephen Hawking is gifted, but he has undoubtedly put in a lot of hard work to.

Personal anecdotes aren't evidence. It's clearly a bit of both, otherwise certain skills are not recognized as you grow up. Some people are naturally gifted at mathematics, and some have to work very hard to achieve the same results. To counter your experience, my English and artistic skills were years ahead when I was very young, I even taught other children in my class in developing their spelling and grammar when I was just 7 years old...my parents didn't pressure me into developing skills in any particular area, I just found English came naturally, where as the next person struggled with spelling, sentence structure and vocabulary. So as it's commendable you've worked hard, and it's clear you are knowledgeable in the field, this isn't the case for everybody. Some people are naturally gifted in a subject, and some, however hard they work will simply not achieve the same results. Here's a wiki article that you might find interesting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted

Like 5614 I've been very busy of late, so I've just been writing the odd post here and there, but I don't see a period of inactivity as anything to be worried about. I'm sure the activity fluctuates quite a bit due to a myriad of reasons. As for arrogance and people being called idiots et.c, well that's hardly new is it, there's always been an element of that at SFN, especially in the pseudosciences, speculations et.c, personally I find it very entertaining...it's best not to take it too seriously, it's a forum, and the beauty of that, is nobody really knows who you are, I could be an abnormally intelligent cross dressing chimp for all you lot know, so who cares.

I agree, nobody is here to molly coddle anyone, if that person doesn't understand something. If you're argument or point is completely flawed then it's perfectly acceptable for somebody to be blunt...plus it will probably stop the person asking again. Perhaps people are insulted because you're only 14 Rajib, well age has nothing to do with it, I couldn't careless what age somebody is, if they give me good advice it's good advice, and that's the end of it. I've only been studying seriously for the last 8 or 9 months with a 14 year gap, since studying science and maths. So I'm bound to ask the odd stupid question or two, so it's ridiculous to take it personally, because the person giving you advice has no knowledge of your background or level of understanding. I think people should stop whining, when somebody points out an error in their logic or idea, take the advice on board, and move on...especially when it's obvious the person 'does' have more knowledge in the subject than you, whatever age, and however they come across.

Right, thanks, I'm yet to study Einsteins equations in 'full' so I just needed some clarification...I was very tired when I asked, so apologies if it seemed a bit dumb.

I guess the simplest way to describe light, is that when it interacts with other particles e.g exciting a hydrogen atom, it is a particle a 'photon.' However it propagates as a wave, hence light can be diffracted when passed through a grating. If we did eventually detect gravity waves and they were a result of gravitons, then they would also display wave-particle duality. I'm very tired, and this maybe a stupid question, but wouldn't that mean gravity could be diffracted, somehow ? Apologies to Cap'n for going off topic.

Please have a look at the BBC article below... If there is / or even isn’t a genetic link between Neanderthal man and us, the results if successful will definitely be a step forward in piecing together our ancestry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

Yeah, pretty much what Gilded said, I was in the middle of a response and kept on getting distracted. ParanoiA, it may be worth going back and reading up on Newtonian Mechanics, specifically the laws of motion, before worrying about quantum field theories et.c Once you have inertia sussed, then you can see what is meant by inertial frames, when you tackle relativity.

A photon 'is there' it just acts as though it has no mass, relative to anything else (besides gravity waves which also travel at the speed of light.) That's why it's speed is constant in any reference frame...and, as you said, why photons are regarded as having no 'rest' mass.

Just SFN, and a music technology forum (due to a synth problem I had) which I havn't used for such a long time I've forgotten the name....errr, no it's gone. EDIT: and a few posts on the new theology forums, however my study starts again next week, so it'll probably stay a few posts for quite some time.

My jaw literally dropped when I saw this, watch carefully when they kick the robot from the side and how it self corrects, incredible... http://www.livephysics.com/physics-videos/experiments/the-most-advanced-quadruped-robot-on-earth.html

Oh I agree, the film as a whole is just nothing but gratuitous shock tactics...but that 'does' make for good death scenes. I'm tempted to hire Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid now, haven't seen that movie for about twenty years. The finale of Scarface is another great death scene, Tony Montana blindly thinking he can take on the world, right till the end.