lakmilis

bleep bleep. It lies often in the approach... I find it a shame that it be moved to speculation.. this is exactly* what a "science forum" with random people from around the world must be aiming to achieve at best; to discuss new data and so analysis and interpretations and also debate older things. This should of been allowed to stick in classical physics / newtonian physics and left it at that but ah well. It is a public forum after all , it is not* fulfilling or claiming to fulfill any official set of requirements.

So it predicts merely done products yes? sudden finished outcomes from a set of acute mutations? Flop... out came a human from an ape embryo or ??

Trust you eh? Flat earth found it's way for a considerable amount of time... is it correct? ,)

I doubt there was *any* IQ change whatsoever mate. Our knowledge pool i larger.... Archimedes would by far outsmart most of us if alive today... or Pythagoras or Scorates.... but they spent a lifetime perhaps to devise the first steps which we easily trod in now. I would as easily trust an ancient human which was born now as you in any IQ measures.. in fact I would assume it was down to 50 50 to which one of you was the smarter given its inheritance and of course external stimuli (lets for the sake of the argument say that was held ~constant). So nope, no trends which I can see. It's in your imagination perhaps? Interesting egocentric ideal about oneself. I *remember* reading a 600 page book in 1t grade... Amazing... 600 page book but you don't remember the title nor what it is? just that it was 600 pages? what about content? Lol, how enjoyable people of today can be I remember my first book at 5. It was he-man (hihi). My first 1000+ book I admit was probably not until I was 13 or 14. (Tolkien). All other books up till then were scientific books or fictional book all less than 500 generally (ah wait... through school had to read the bible and went through that at around 12, ok so Tolien 2nd ). However, instead of "floating outside myself, remembering oh how swell I was to read XX pages" , I actually remember most of the content of what I have read in early days... It's more between 14 and 17 I think the vast amount of books just has slipped out of my memory :/

lol. Am not gonna go there. the axiom is flawed even if the mechanisms described are [partially?] not. Where are the half humans, half species, etc?

Thank you for the explanation Atheist... very nice and helpful Although a German atheist can only make me think of Nietsche which I personally thought was a bit of a gimp but alas... it is beides the point ,)

Of course he did... he used the Minkowski metric for this

LOL at 1st year undergrad aeronautical students ,p

Well, to be honest... Swansont / Severin / ajb have very good insights in the way physicists see things today... But the spin is known as that simply because to begin with that is what it was proposed to be... an electron actually spinning. This was proposed because early spectrometer analysis showed small deviations between spectral lines appeared even when no magentic fields were present I think. Later on 'we' thought ah come on... electron as a particle is pretty non-sensical anyway so this intrinsic angular momentum? I think it is, still had a property and remained to be called spin but definitely is not physical orbital (sorry, axial ) spin. I do not know *why* it happens to have +.05/-0.5 for its values... ask the QM peeps. Knowing you Swansont I am taken it you don't mean its not physical but not physical as we would associate it to be (like the earth spinning right?)

It is always good to see the young having heard our previous claims Sorry, I posted a quote reply on 1st page and didn't get to see all... that 'time' or the perception of movement existing only due to human perception must be easy to show is flawed absollutely... but I am sure you nor others are using the argument for the sum of all (or FOR ALL) perceptrons in the universe will still be flawed. In other words.... remove all perceivable entities in the universe from perceiving movement... and one has no way of definining time... other than the cyclic argument that things will still operate the way they do with or without us... sure... but time then would not exist as any practical measure. Face it.... Would life go on... would time exist? these things of course would be futile... time could as such exist or not but it would be absolutely non-sensical to debate it. Just wanted to remind the forum that time is the perception of movement.. (which is not merely human based). wll klaynos, they do as such... they are measuring differences in states, thus movement... the frequency of such state changes makes us interpret as 'time'... due to relations with other state changes which are consistent in repetition we recognise that there is a range which is (on a human level) constant and thanks to ageing, we relate these processes to that which we all know as time... both at a scientifically measurable level and at a metaphysical level (the notion). hmmm. I would rather formulate myself as 'stuff' as you call it is rather a property of energy. Before I also make myslf sound a little unclear: What I mean is 'stuff' (I of course take it you mean matter) is a result of energy in a certain form or state... Energy however does not need to be defined through matter.... thus energy is not really a property of stuff but vice versa 'Space' and 'time' are 'dimensions' in mathematical models we employ to our reality. i.e. space is intuitively 1 dimension... but later on through analysis we quickly realized hey... modelling it in 3 dimensions is useful... and adding time as a dimension came just recently Make ure you really know what you are wishing to say Klaynos PS. My keyboard has lamed out and 's' and 'e' in particular are leniently submissive

Alright I am a little outdated on certain things with these respects... I remember though something I was sceptical too during my younger years... the cosmological principle is it?.. where all celestial objects were meant to be generally expanding or moving away from each other.... Now... I always have wondered when it comes to black holes... if they are actual 'holes' ... then they should not move away but seem rather static in their relative position eg. they would function as 'local' centres.... if they are dense .. as do indeed have the mass and it is not swallowed into some singularity we still are boggled about... then they will behave as other objects... can anyone update me a bit on this? cheers

Hmm. good point Albers.... but in that analogy , the outer skater if drew all momentum from the inner skater to stop the angular momentum to then let go... transferring it to a celestial object having a.. ok wait before I answer without thinking.. let me make some scribbles.. no let me rather just stick to the intuitivie initial thought I had... transferring the analogy back to a celestial object undegoing such a massive grav. collapse to actually become a black hole (and since you were trying to convince me a hole with no ang. momentum could be feasible..)... the blast would need to transfer as you say all angular momentum and yet escape whilst this object is collapsing to a non naked singularity???? hmm (as in to 'drop' enough mass to halt rotation entirely would have to mean the last lump to stick to analogies would have to be let loose at the time when the object becomes a black hole... in which it is sucked back in then?). You are going to have to give me a better one than two skaters before I can go along with it albers... mmm. Ok this is 10 minutes later or so... I can see one could claim it to be possible then... if (just for simplicity we say the explosion is 'instantaneous' and the excess mass is all let go in one lump)... ok so it would all explode off... taking away the angular momentum... the black hole is a SR. hole and ZIP it all gets sucked back in as its so close to this hole then ye... ? No external momentum to a black hole needs to increase its ang. momentum right(if not indeed that is the actualy case)? Hmm any feedback please albers would be appreciated... if you are not around to read this old post. I'll pm you. sorry I'm just abt to go to bed Albers and I am absoilutely knackered so I hope you can make out what I just tried to say with those incoherent sentences :/ lak

LMAO... classic.... nice one X

I used to set that condition when I was working early on in my philosophy... It relates ot HUme's and Kant's debates... I used it actually as an argument when I was 14 and wrote a protest to the idea of travelling in time... (as in the one where one 'allows' oneself to travel faster than light disregarding relativity effects.. infinite mass etc)... Anyway I later on devised one of my postulates based on this question: p1: "Time is the perception of movement." I strongly disagree with accepting the 4th dimension from relativity as an actual time dimension.. it works fine with the mathematical model applied to the physical world... but I claim time is the observation of a dimension rather than the dimension itself... thus I imply that the geometrial manifold of space is in fact connected with us observers yes.. but in a slightly different way...I claim further on (with other work of course.. I am just summarising here some points), that the mind is in fact a real physical substance, part of the same object of which our bodies are.. its just that it is the dimension > 3 part of that object. thus our own senses can't perceive the material our own minds are made of. Nevermind, sorry for whacking this in... but if you continue this question you will come to some similar ideas probably good luck ps. (a renormalisation or rather a redefinition of kaluza-klein theory would be sort of the way to go if one stuck to the axioms which might be somehwat perceivable from this point of view which of course are not at all acceptable in current models of space continuums). With this I mean a 5-D metric would create the symmetry which would combine the mind/organic lifeforce with the 3 subdimensions we know as space or reality).

well ok, u gave a form u wish to obtain by completing the sqaure.... to complete the square u do this: (m + 1/2)^2 = -11/4 is that enough? or do u wish now to proceed and take the root on each side etc etc?

great martin, I loved to see someone state this... although one thing... in reality the event horizon will be GM , the basic state as you said, rather than 2GM, no object in the universe which we know of has no angular momentum, and if a black hole was created from a celestial object collapsing it most certainly had a -'lot-' of angular momentum, making the event horizon at 2GM pretty impossible... of course GM is an extreme Kerr hole, this should be the case but then again, I completely missed the prediction of the frequencies of quasars, I thought they would be hitting 4-5 [kHz], fastes so afr observed is 1.1 or so? :/ but nonetheless, Schwarschild is just a useless metric, Kerr is the one to go for, or at least one of these general conditions with angular momentum

Norman, You know from other posts why I say Kerr is better to use than Schw. Schw is a hole with no angualr momentum, any celestial obcject unless has been since the beginning a black hole must of had angular momentum...thus use the kerr metric. Scwz. is just useless...except for when the day comes where we might produce sone ourselves, sure then there is nothign which says we *must* include angular momentum. SQRT? lol that was the abbreviation of the Roman empire was it not? ,) anyway, thats all i can come with with your methodology The question is, are you just trying to work on similar operations as has been before by the people you are emulating or do you wish to find some unique deduction not found before and if so, what are you really looking for? lak

ok didnt read everything, but yes Fred I also am in the school of time does not exist. (works as a dimension in a model though by all means). About the information, sure, so we say information is energy or must be encoded within it. Then I would like to hear the ideas from the aspect principle,, was it called? ANyway, the expriment showing a couple photon pair , regardless of distance become reciprocally polarized when one of the two is polarized..... Since no third photon can make an infinite jump between them, as long as this experiment stands, none of your 'strong' arguments hold as well...don't be so sure you got a clue about it My proposal for this or rather inquiry was looking into something similar as Kaluza-Klein did, albeit philosophically or empirically rather than rationally (i.e. using observation to make deductions and inductions, rather than deriving it from pure tensor fields , mathematically and then testing if it would fit the data). i.e. using 5 dimensions instead of 4 to describe the reality. Anyway, I left that very vague on purpose, don't want people to digress, but link the aspect principle or experiment with the arguments of the planck energy being the smallest or even the only* way of passing information. And saying the photon is the smallest energy packet..doesn't neutrinos which are smaller 'physically' , have smaller energy than a photon? do they not carry information as they are in their own respect an 'entity' or object rather? lak

wow, very likely....phew, guess you know more than most humans on this planet... hell, since its so very likely, could you give me soem experimental data to back up such a 'well-recognised' claim?

Yes, I am referring implicitly to the 4 black hole types from GR and saying that SR , if used on relativistic escape velocities, will predict one of them (correctly or not is the notion im just pointing out is interesting). That it was not in the right forum...well it does relate to the TIME as you put it, given people here are using concepts from SR to relate to it. just felt I would add it so it make people rethink some of their 'understandings' but fair enough..noted.

well, like I said, I confused myself earlier, but what swansont is saying is that in classical physics there is no retardation of the gravity vector between two objects, i.e. no matter how fast the two objects displace w.r.t each other, the gravity vector instantenously follows the direct line between the two...the straight line being in newtonian space..or I guess I should rather say Euclidean.

Well, this private site by this tosser who can't even spell theories and gives 'special previews' by "us" and enjoys photoshop and is trying to use words he can't even grasp is simply hilarious....Now I finally understand the reservations and hopefully remaining rigidity to ban people with stupid 'theories' if claimed to be so.... Although I am still very adamant about as long as postulates, axiom proposals, hypothesis' and ideas etc are used, then it should be valid as long as it is not an absolute obvious persistent idiotacy to a poster.... I also regret this misunderstanding of claiming philosophy does not belong here, as science is a subset of the former. Anyway, this bloke is quite lost in a topic of which he's day dreaming about. ...special offer.... the author is preparing his first publication ....OMG i just have to add some more online jargon, pardon my French.... FOAD...in fact, I'll pardon that novajoe joseph bloke IFF (no, not a typy but an abbrv. for if and only if) he is French in fact.

yes swansont, thats what I thought [and meant] sorry. to atheist, ok, sorry my mind is getting rather tired, heading to bed soon.

more so in mathematics than physics swansont. I see your point, and as such I do not have any objections to treat the time coordinate in minkowski space any different than we would. I just have to still point out, when talking about leaving 'science' and discussions on time etc, these things become relevant of which I mentioned. In other words, I was really pointing out conceptual jargon rather than the essence of your post, my apologies

hmm, but does relativity predict graivty waves travel at speed of light? I thought newtonian mechanics did so and that was some of the problems with it, gravity acts with respect to some objects position earlier in time , a ct distance away from the other body....