michel123456

Here an example of what I mean. Does mass change with velocity? 1. at the end of this long explanation, where is the answer? (you have to read it all) Is it so difficult to say "No, invariant mass does not change with velocity" and put an end to an endless waiste of time discussing over the Net impossible effects of an unexisting phenomena? And besides, as mentioned in the link, why continuing mentioning the term "rest mass" when the term "invariant mass" is clear like fresh water and leaves no doubt? Note that the question becomes silly:"does something invariant change?" No of course.

I don't understand your argument. Maybe you should rephrase to make it clearer. Thanks.

Mathematics are complex. But mathematics are about 1+1=2. From that simple "evidence", the set of real numbers arise immediately. Multiplication arises as a tool and division introduces fractions. Squared are a simple deduction and square root introduce the first aberrations. Zero arises after a few thoughts (thousands of years actually), then negative numbers, imaginary numbers and so on. Complexity is the product of elaboration upon a very simple statement. The same goes for binary systems in computers. The universe is an incredibly complex machine, we have to find its 1+1=2. As a remark, 1+1=2 is based upon a simple everyday logic we call common sense. what you called "the perfect logic". So at this point we all agree that logic and maths coincide. I hope this will happen in physics one day too. -------------------------------- as for explanations from scientists to common people, it is very rare IMHO to find genuine ones. for example in my previous post I said That is because most explanations in verbal logic are misleading: in this case most often half of the truth is explained. When a scientist explains that it is also more difficult to put in motion a heavy weight, and that corresponds to common sense too, the other half of the explanation appears clearly. The thing that will make coincide maths & logic consists simply in explaining that the physical law that rules inertia is the one and same law that rules attraction, and that in the case of a falling body, the logic that says a heavy body should fall faster cancels exactly the other logic that says a heavy body is more difficult to put in motion. Everything can be explained in terms of logic. The first question is, do we have the knowledge to do so? The second question is: do we want to do so? You say of course scientists want to explain their knowledge in terms of logic. I have a serious doubt.

Ha. we found a point of divergence! (it is so boring to say how wonderful ideas we both have, isn't it?) I have a very different approach about Time. But that would make the thread derail. -------------- That makes me think about another logical tool: classification and unification

Ι agree and disagree simultaneously. Maths are very important, no doubt about that. But maths do not explain anything. I mean when Newton finds that gravitation obeys a square law, and calculates the trajectories of falling objects including the planets, he makes a great step forward for science, sure, but he does not "explain" anything: he calculates. Explanation begins with language: the square law is called "universal law of gravitation" and nearly 300 years after we still don't know what gravity is. We are able to calculate, but we are (still) unable to understand. On the other side Galileo showed first that logic alone is not enough: a heavy object does not fall faster than a light one. IMHO logic and mathematics are complementary tools. Since Einstein's arrival, the whole scientific community has learned to accept mathematics (including experimentation and measurements) above all, and as a result logic is considered as an outdated tool that gives false conclusions. The result is that the Internet is full of people convinced that "Einstein is wrong". That is because logic don't seem to work. What really happens IMHO is that the gap between rigourous maths and simple logic is very pleasing to the scientific community. This gap is a protective system, like a moat around a castle. Scientists are not obliged anymore to make their explanations comprehensible to the mass. The common point of vue is "do the math and you will understand" or "if you can't do the math you will never understand". What has become clear to me is that even after doing the math, it is still incomprehensible. Like Gravity, you can calculate, you can even anticipate, but you cannot understand. You wrote I do. And then That is measurement and calculation. Do you claim that after calculating, you understand the logic behind Gravity? Is it logical at all that gravity is an attractive force, the main force acting at long distances between planets stars and galaxies? and that our current observations consist at measuring exacting the contrary, an expanding and accelerating universe? Here the gap between mathematical rigour and logic is wider than the Grand Canyon. Rigourous scientists invent repulsive gravity and calculate unexisting things. The gap is wider than the atlantic ocean. Worse: when an intelligent individual comes and proposes some kind of reconciliation between logic and maths, he is considered as a clown, exactly as if the gap was holy. Scientists smile , exactly the same way they smile when they try to explain things they do not understand. Oops, this answer belongs to another thread about verbal logic, sorry. What do you have against simplicity?

Woaw difficult to discuss many points in a single thread. Point 4 is ultimately about Time. We all have to admit we don't know what time is. So we cannot discuss about what "finite in time" really means. Some say that's about the "beginning of time" which I consider word salad. Logic tells me first to understand what we are talking about and discuss the details afterwards. Point 6 is maybe difficult to represent. Any time I encounter the word "intrinsic" I know that the author don't know. That was the logic of Democritus but IMHO there is a lack of consistency in this logic, similar to point 2: there is no origin of the Universe outside of the Universe either the "outside" is infinitely big, or infinitely small. IMHO the only logical and consistent position should be that, as there is no outside limit of the Universe, there is no "inside" limit of the Universe. It may be incomprehensible but at least it has some logic of symmetry.

Very wide and profound. Point 1. Occam's razor: nothing to add. Point 2. Nothingness: I remember as a child our teacher explaining ancient beliefs over parthenogenesis and we pupils laughing at the incredible imbecility of ancient people. Nothing have changed though and many people today believe that something can appear from nothing. I prefer the position which says that "nothing" is impossible. Point 3. Relativity: IMHO Mach is the one, not Einstein. Einstein's Relativity is the result of an absolute: the Speed Of Light. There are a lot to say here, but that won't lead nowhere, the Web is full of such discussions. I prefer wonder about these other instances that are still not considered relative. Dimension for instance: IIRC Planck length has a specific absolute value in meters, IMHO it should be relative too. Point 4. I don't understand the condition "If the universe is ultimately finite concerning times past", because IMHO even if this condition is not fulfilled, even then the statement "there could be no exterior cause for it." stands. Point 5. Least Action. One of my favorites, nothing to add. Adding point 6 of mine: the concept "intrinsic" is wrong. For example: how is it logically possible to imagine an elementary particle that have some intrinsic properties if this particle is not made of something else?

Right. I agree. Except for resurrection but that would be for the religion forum, no need to derail about that. about your "the lowest possible number of different particles", what do you think of this (from this site) Isn't that simple? (sarcasm, nothing against you). IIUC (if I understand correctly) the standard model enumerates 18 elementary particles and 13 antiparticles not counting the hypothetical ones. THAT is very interesting. I agree. You should open a new thread about that.

The good way is to discuss and find some arrangement. When you separate, you are still neighbours, so even then you must find some arrangements, otherwise it is war. I understand that most politicians earn their lives finding disagreements instead of finding arrangements. The wise man shouldn't follow such politicians.

That is the naive point of vue. Usually, when a single observation seems to falsify a Theory, the observation is put in a drawer with an inscription saying "to be explained". What really happens is that a Theory is falsified only when another better Theory arises. When there is no replacement, the existing Theory still stands, no matter how many observations are contradicting. Science does not accept to remain without any Theory.

I have no time by now but in explains about repulsive gravity (quoted from memory).

Velikovsky is a very controversial author.

But IIRC repulsive gravity is used as a mechanism for Inflation Theory.

I wonder. The principle of least action is beautifully simple and ressembles very much to the sharp edge of Occam's razor. I agree 1000%.

Give them money, not food. In my country beggars don't ask for food, they ask for money. I personnaly don't work for food, I work for money. Our entire society lives around money. If you gave several billions of dollars to these people, they would not only eat, they would start consuming a bunch of other products and maybe produce something. they would buy Armani suits and look better than you and me, they would build schools or even come to some Britain's College. But I know, it is naive and immoral to give money.

Let's recall that a few hundred years ago the occident was a developing region. In the time of industrialization people in England France Germany were reproducing like rabbits. Families with over ten children was an average, and the wealth level of these people was extremely low. I support JohnB in his description of the way to solve the problem: development. I don't think it has anything to do with climate change, except that it is a global issue. We everybody must learn to treat our planet as one single entity, and not like an assembly of heteroclit masses. Edit: sorry for Greg. I'll stop posting here waiting his return.

I quoted your post where it looked to me you were proposing population reduction. i am trying not to. Right. Your parents were unwise not to use fertility reduction. I guess they were not informed of the harm they would cause to the planet bringing you to life. (sarcasm) My comments are supposed to enhance that in your post it looks to me that "the others" are too many on the planet.

It is technically feasible but no one seems interested engaging the cost. a press article here on this subject. We can manage rain & sunshine under average conditions. We can also move to another place, it is easier than trying to change the weather at the place where we are born. I doubt that is technically feasible.

Excellent proposition. I suggest to get rid of you first as good example.

European Union would not want an oversized member. That counts for the U.S., for Russia, even for Turkey.

No doubt about that. You are asking a lot but you don't take part to the conversation, why?

I got an obsession: where is Mr Rayon?

I found part of the 5%.

Interesting that no native German seems to be member of this Forum.

That is the position of Germany. Shee feels right in her shoes, the past is forgotten, she owes nothing. Greece see things differently. She remembers what happened 3000 years ago, and what happened 66 years ago looks terribly close. They are still some individuals in court claiming for damages. Anyway, both opinions exist. The point is about ingratitude. Greeks don't ask for a gift, they ask for a loan. In 2010, the Greek population payed 75 million Euros in interest rates to friend nation Belgium. I have no information for Germany or France, but it must be about 10 times larger there. I feel a great injustice when the poor ones pay the rich ones for sitting on a chair. Where is Mr Rayon?